Once a settlement deed is accepted and acted upon, revocation of the settlement at the will of the Settlor is impermissible.

Challenge in this Second Appeal is to the Judgment in A.S.No.73/1994 thereby reversing the Judgment of trial court and decreeing Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant is the Appellant in the Second Appeal. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suit. Pending Second Appeal, Plaintiff Parvathi ammal died and her legal representatives were brought on record in the Appeal as Appellants 2 to 7.

2. Deceased Plaintiff Parvathi ammal is the sisters daughter of Dhanabagyammal and Defendant is the brothers son of said Dhanabagyammal. Case of the Plaintiff is that suit property fell to the share of Dhanabagyammal in the partition dated 09.07.1935. Dhanabagyammal executed a settlement deed (Ex.A2) dated 05.05.1965 in favour of the Plaintiff. Settlement deed was accepted and acted upon and given effect to and Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Plaintiff has been dealing with the property. The portion mentioned as A B C D in the plan is the suit property and B C E F is in possession of the Defendant. Plaintiff has been paying the tax. Defendant fraudulently obtained settlement deed from Dhanabagyammal by deed dated 15.09.1980 under Ex.B17 and it is an invalid document. According to the Plaintiff, she has also perfected title by adverse possession and defendant has no right in the suit property.

3. Denying possession of the Plaintiff in the suit property and alleging that the Settlement deed in her favour is not valid, Defendant has filed written statement contending that he is in possession of the suit property. According to the Defendant, Settlement deed was revoked under Ex.B18 dated 17.06.1975 and that Dhanabagyammal had executed Settlement deed Ex.B17 in his favour on 15.09.1980.

4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. Upon consideration of evidence, trial court held that Ex.A2-Settlement deed was validly cancelled under Ex.B18 and that Dhanabagyammal had settled the suit property in favour of Defendant under Ex.B17. Trial court further held that Defendant is in possession of the suit property and Ex.B17 is binding upon the Plaintiff. Finding that Plaintiff had failed to prove her possession, trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs suit.

5. Being aggrieved, Plaintiff has preferred appeal in A.S.No.73/1994. Lower Appellate court held that settlement deed executed in favour of Plaintiff is valid and given effect to. Pointing out that there was no recital in Ex.A2 to revoke the settlement deed, it was held that Settlor cannot revoke the earlier settlement deed. Lower Appellate court held that Ex.B17 settlement deed in favour of the Defendant is not valid. Finding that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by letting out to her sister P.W.3 Dhanalakshmi, lower Appellate court allowed the appeal and decreeing Plaintiffs suit.

6. Aggrieved, Defendant has preferred the Second Appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:

Whether the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated in granting injunction while the Plaintiff has not proved her adverse possession over the suit property on the date of filing of the suit?

7. Challenging the impugned Judgment of the lower Appellate court, Mr. M. Damodaran, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Ex.A2 was not acted upon. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Plaintiff had failed to prove that she had taken possession of the suit property pursuant to Ex.A2 settlement deed. It was further argued that when Ex.A2 settlement deed was not acted upon and Settlor and Defendant continued to be in possession, Settlor Dhanabagyammal revoked Ex.A2 and settled the suit property in favour of the Defendant under Ex.B17 settlement deed. The learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that lower Appellate court ignored the weight of evidence and failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper per