The above suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit property was filed before the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was transferred to this Court, as per the order of this Court dated 19.6.2014, for trial along with the TOS.No.8 of 2011

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of suit property, which was purchased by her by way of sale deed dated 17.10.2010. The plaintiff submits that originally one V.M.Balasubramanian was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with his wife B.Rajalakshmi and they had no issues. The defendants are the brother's son and daughter of the said V.M.Balasurbamanian. According to the plaintiff, the said V.M.Balasubramanian, had executed a Will dated 01.6.2001 bequeathing the suit property to the second defendant. Thereafter the said V.M.Balasubramanian, also executed a Settlement Deed dated 10.09.2007 in favour of the second defendant and the same was acted upon by her. Subsequently, on 16.11.2007, V.M.Balasubramanian cancelled the Will dated 01.6.2001 executed by him in favour of second defendant by way of a Deed of cancellation of Will dated 16.11.2007.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, on the date of purchase two tenants, viz., Kanthammal and P.Ravikumar were occupying the suit property. Since the tenants failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands, she filed two eviction petitions viz., RCOP No.393 of 2011 and RCOP No.394 of 2011 against them. In both the RCOPs ex parte eviction orders were passed against the defendants. When, the plaintiff is taking steps to execute the said eviction orders, she came to know about the settlement-revocation dated 10.2.2009 through them. According to the plaintiff, the deed of revocation of settlement dated 10.02.2009 and the Will dated 10.2.2009 are not legally valid and binding on the plaintiff because, as on 10.02.2009, the said V.M.Balasubramanian was not the owner of the suit property. Hence, the present suit.

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

(i) Denying the allegations made in the plaint, it is the contention of the first defendant that the suit property belonged to late V.M.Balasubramanian and he had no issues. It is stated that the father of the first defendant is his younger brother. It is further stated that even after the alleged Settlement deed said to have been executed by V.M.Balasubramanian, he was managing the property and the property tax, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage Tax and charges and Electricity Connection stood in his name. The first defendant submits that the plaintiff purchased the property by way of sale deed dated 17.10.2010 is not known to him. In fact, after the death of late V.M.Balasubramanian possession of the property was with the first defendant and his younger brother late Sivaraman @ Babu till his death and now it is in the possession of the first defendant. It is stated that V.M.Balasubramanian had executed a Will and the same is pending for probate in O.P.No.601 of 2010 and the second defendant had filed caveat and the said proceedings has been converted into a suit in T.O.S.No.8/2011. The first defendant also submits that the plaintiff and the second defendant is aware about the revocation of the settlement deed and even after knowing the same, the sham and nominal sale deed had been created in the name of the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff is not bona fide purchaser. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Will dated 10.2.2009 in favour of the second defendant is valid?

2. Whether the deed of Revocation of the Settlement Deed dated 10.02.2009 declared to be invalid?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle