The settlement deed was acted upon as possession was handed over to the plaintiff, and the revocation of the settlement deed was not valid in the eye of the law.

1. Defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.128 of 2004, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.132 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur, have filed the present second appeals, aggrieved over the common judgment and decrees dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur in A.S.Nos.35 and 36 of 2006, reversing the common judgment and decrees passed by the trial court in both the suits.

2. The 1st respondent herein, viz., Tamilarasi is the plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2004 and she filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3, their mother deceased Iythal and the appellants as the defendants for a declaration of her title over the suit property, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, a declaration that the cancellation deed dated 20.02.1996 and the two sale deeds dated 29.11.1996 and another two sale deeds dated 16.06.1997 are not true and valid and they would not bind the plaintiff.

3. The appellants herein, viz., K.A.Shanmugam and K.Sengodan filed O.S.No.132 of 2004 against the respondents herein and the deceased Iythal as the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. For convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their ranking before the trial court in O.S.No.128 of 2004.

4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2004, who is arrayed as the 1st defendant in O.S.No.132 of 2004, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff Tamilarasi and defendants 1 and 2, viz., Sevanthi and Ayaponnu are the sisters and the 3rd defendant Iythal is their mother. The plaintiff is the widow and has got two minor daughters and one minor son and her husband died about 8 years back in the accident. The suit property originally belonged to Iythal, who executed a registered gift settlement in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 23.06.1994 and since then, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The patta for the suit property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff by the revenue authorities and the kist has been paid by the plaintiff for the suit property. Due to personal enmity, defendants 1 and 2 attempted to trespass into the suit property on 31.12.1996 and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that her mother cancelled the settlement deed dated 23.06.1994 executed in her favour and thereafter, executed two sale deeds dated 29.11.1996 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property, who, in turn, sold the same to defendants 4 and 5 (appellants) by executing two sale deeds dated 16.06.1997. The cancellation of the settlement deed and the sale deeds are not valid and the defendants are not entitled to get any right, title or interest over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

(b) The case of defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.128 of 2004, who are arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.132 of 2004 is that the settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was not acted upon; however, subsequently by cancellation deed, their mother had revoked the settlement deed to the knowledge of the plaintiff and executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 29.11.1996 and put them in separate possession on the date of sale and from that date, only they were in possession of the properties purchased by them on their own right. Hence, the plaintiff had no right whatsoever in the suit property. Though the plaintiff had a knowledge about the revocation deed, she obtained patta in her name falsely in respect of the suit property and thereafter, on appeal, the patta was transferred in favour of them.

(c) According to the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.128 of 2004, who is arrayed as 2nd defendant in O.S.No.132 of 2004 that she admitted the execution of the