The appellant is the plaintiff. The first respondent herein is the first defendant who is none else than the father of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants are Government officials. The appellant as the plaintiff filed the suit to declare the settlement revocation deed dated 23.08.2011 executed by the first defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from registering the name transfer on the basis of the said revocation deed.

2. The trial court decreed the suit in so far as the relief seeking for declaration is concerned and however, rejected the relief of injunction sought against the defendants 2 and 3 as not necessary. The first defendant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The appeal was allowed thereby dismissing the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit properties belonged to his father viz., the first defendant. The plaintiff, by putting up a house in the fourth item and cultivating the lands shown as item 1 to 3, is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. However on ill advise of some persons, the first defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff for permanent injunction. A compromise was arrived in the Lok Adalat. The first defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 21.09.2010 in favour of the plaintiff settling the suit properties. Accordingly, a compromise decree was passed on 30.10.2010 in the said suit. As per the terms of the settlement, though the plaintiff was maintaining his mother and the first defendant, due to ill advise of some persons, the first defendant revoked the settlement by way of a deed of revocation dated 23.08.2011 and applied for patta transfer. Hence, the present suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the first defendant is as follows:

The suit properties are the self acquired property of the first defendant and the plaintiff attempted to grab the properties. Hence, he filed the suit in O.S. No. 186 of 2009 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff. It is false to state that the first defendant had executed the settlement deed on 21.09.2010 in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the compromise arrived before the Lok Adalat. The first defendant had not signed the compromise. The plaintiff has obtained signature of the first defendant in the settlement deed against his desire by assaulting him and his wife and also by threatening to murder. The first defendant was not in conscious state of mind at the time of executing and registering the settlement deed. The possession of the suit properties were not given to the plaintiff. The first defendant has been in possession of the suit properties as a true owner.

4. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A20 which include the original registered settlement deed dated 21.09.2010, patta transfer order, transfer of electricity service connection, E.B. Card, electricity charges payment receipt, house tax receipt, extract of chitta adangal, kist receipts, true copy of the lok adalat settlement memo. On the side of the first defendant, he examined himself as DW1, apart from examining two other persons as DW2 and DW3. The first defendant marked Exs.B1 to B25 which are again patta, adangal register, service connection given by the Tamilnadu E.B., house tax receipts, electricity summon charges, etc.,

5. The trial court found that the first defendant has admitted the execution of the settlement deed unequivocally during his cross-examination; that the reasons stated in the revocation deed is not the reasons stated by the first defendant in his statement; that the original settlement deed has been handed over to the plaintiff, as it has been produced before the court from the custody of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has taken possession of the suit properties in pursuance of the settlement deed on the date of execution itself; that the house tax and reven