The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revocation of a Settlement Deed without a clause for revocation is not valid, and Sale Deeds based on such revocation are also invalid.

1. Defendants 1 & 2, who lost before the Courts below, have filed the Second Appeal aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in A.S. No.72 of 1997, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, dated 05.02.1997 in O.S. No.45 of 1992. Pending Appeal, both Appellants died and as such, their Legal Representatives were brought on record as Appellants 3 & 4.

2. Respondents 1 & 2 herein were the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court and they filed the Suit as against Appellants 1 & 2 as well as the 3rd Respondent herein as Defendants for declaration of their right, title and interest to the suit properties and also vacant possession of the said properties from the Defendants.

3. The case of the Plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: The 1st Plaintiff is the son and the 2nd Plaintiff is the wife of one late Subramani Chettiar and the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the 1st Plaintiff. There was a partition on 16.03.1985 in respect of the family properties and half share in the suit properties were allotted to the 1st Plaintiff and another half share was allotted to Subramani Chettiar. On 21.03.1986, the said Subramani Chettiar gifted his half share in the suit properties in favour of his wife, the 2nd Plaintiff under two registered Gift Deeds and the said gift was acted upon and possession was handed over to the 2nd Plaintiff. Accordingly, the mutation of names in the property tax demand register of Vaniyambadi Municipality was duly effected and thus, plaintiffs 1 & 2 have become the absolute owners of the suit properties.

4. It is the further case of Plaintiffs that before the said family partition, the suit properties, which consists of two items, were rented out to the 2nd Defendant by the said Subramani Chettiar on a monthly rent of `75/- for each item and after partition and execution of gift, the 2nd Defendant was instructed to pay the monthly rents directly to the Plaintiffs and the tenancy was attorned by the said Subramani Chettiar in favour of the Plaintiffs and he also agreed to pay the same. But the 2nd Defendant failed to pay the rent from March, 1986 and that apart, he sub-let the suit properties to the 3rd Defendant and to one Fazlur Rahman Sahib. Hence, the Plaintiffs constrained to file Rent Control proceedings and the said Fazlur Rahman vacated from the premises. In the said proceedings, since the 2nd Defendant disputed the title of the Plaintiffs with regard to the suit properties, the Rent Control Court directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed the present Suit, denying the allegation of the 2nd Defendant that Subramani Chettiar executed a Sale Agreement dated 05.11.1984 in respect of the suit properties and stated that the said Subramani Chettiar had no right to sell any portion of the suit properties. Further, the allegation that the 1st Defendant purchased half share in both items of the suit properties under Sale Deeds dated 26.11.1986 and 27.11.986 from the said Subramani Chettiar is also not correct and Defendants 1 & 2 fraudulently created the said agreements to grab half share in the suit properties. In spite of repeated demands, the 2nd Defendant did not pay the rent and deliver vacant possession and hence, the Plaintiffs sent a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the 2nd Defendant. Though the 2nd Defendant received the notice, there was no compliance. Hence, the Suit.

5. The case of the Plaintiffs was resisted by the Defendants by filing separate Written Statement and stated that the suit properties originally belonged to one Subramani (the father of the 1st Plaintiff) and his brother Arumugam and they partitioned the family properties under a registered Partition Deed dated 31.12.1978 and in which, the suit properties and some other properties fell into the share of Subramani Chettiar, who entered into an agreement of sale with th