A settlement deed is valid and enforceable if it is accepted and acted upon by the parties, and the burden of proving fraud or undue influence in the execution of a settlement deed lies on the party alleging it.

1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants in this appeal, which arises out of O.S. No. 118 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The suit was filed by the first respondent (P. Balasubramania Mudaliar) for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession on the following averments:

2. The plaintiff is the son through the first wife of Paramasiva Mudaliar. The second wife is the first defendant through whom he had three daughters, defendants 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiff is employed as a teacher and is residing in Door No. 36, Vinayagar Koil Street, New Vandipalayam. The plaintiffs father was not properly treated and maintained by the second wife. He was subjected to illtreatment by the first defendant. He used to come to the house of the plaintiff at Vinayagar Koil Street, and used to stay with him. Out of love and affection, he executed Ex. A3 settlement deed on 3rd October, 1973 in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is situate in Padhiri Street, Old Vandipalayam, Cuddalore. This settlement deed was acted upon. The plaintiff took possession of the suit property, had the registry changed in his name and was paying the municipal tax. He has also effected repairs and obtained electricity connection. The first defendant issued a notice under Ex. A10 to the plaintiff and his father, Paramasiva Mudaliar, calling upon them to make the provision for the maintenance of the defendants. She also attacked the settlement as having been obtained by exercise of fraud and coercion. This was replied both by the plaintiff as well as his father under Ex. A11 wherein the father stood by the settlement categorically. Thereafter, defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed O.P. No. 3 of 1975 on the file of the sub-Court, Cuddalore, against the plaintiff and his father, praying for maintenance on the ground that the settlement Ex. A3 was obtained by fraud and undue influence. The father remained ex parte . Finally, the said O.P. was dismissed, as not pressed. In the meantime on 3rd April, 1975 the plaintiffs father executed a deed of revocation, revoking the settlement under Ex. B12. Since by reason of the revocation, a cloud has been cast on the title of the plaintiff and his right to recover, possession, pursuant to Ex. A3, is at stake, the present suit has come to be filed.

3. In the written statement of the defendants it was urged that the first defendant was married to Paramasiva about 35 years ago. All were living amicably in the plaint schedule house. The plaintiff has been residing separately even before hit marriage. The second defendant was married to a boy in Pondicherry in August, 1969, and she became a widow in two years from the date of the marriage. She got some money for her future maintenance and the father wanted her to come with the money and live in the suit property. The second defendant was not willing and this enraged the feelings between him and the daughters and the wife. The plaintiff took advantage of this momentary difference between the parties and took away the father to his house. There he obtained Ex. A3 settlement deed by fraud and undue influence. It was neither accepted nor acted upon. Till the father died, the plaintiff never came to the suit house. The father realised the mistake of executing the settlement deed and, therefore, he revoked the same. Out of mercy, a room was allotted to the plaintiff. The defendants are residing in two of the rooms and even otherwise the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff is invalid, as there is the wife, viz., the first defendant, who is the maintenance holder and unmarried daughters. In view of S. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, the settlement deed is invalid. It is not necessary such settlement deed, Ex. A3 must provide for a clause for revocation. The defendants are not barred nor estopped from questioning the validity of the settlement deed. The revocation deed is a voluntary Act. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.