R. Mahadevan, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs.

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

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs contending that the suit property was originally purchased by the 3rd plaintiff in the name of his son, the defendant in 1976 to make a responsible person and to improve his marriage prospects. Subsequently, an irrevocable settlement deed dated 09.09.1981 was executed by the defendant in favour of the 3rd plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff claimed to be in possession from the date of settlement and commenced the construction. Instigated by his wife and in-laws, the defendant has cancelled the settlement deed on 21.01.1982 without the consent and knowledge of the 3rd plaintiff. The fact of cancellation came to the knowledge of the 3rd plaintiff only through the notice dated 30.12.1992 sent by the defendants lawyer. Subsequently on.19.01.1996, the 3rd plaintiff has sold the suit property in favour of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and they were put in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendant and his henchmen tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and hence the suit was filed for bare injunction.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the property was purchased out of his own funds and was always under his possession. The settlement deed was only sham and was never acted upon. Subsequent to the cancellation, the defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife and put up construction in the suit property. The defendant also contending that the suit property along with other properties were purchased and enjoyed as joint family properties filed a suit for partition in O.S No 225/1993. The defendant also contended that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 was sham as the property worth more than Rs.1,00,000/- was alienated for just Rs.15,000/- and the same has been impounded by the registration authorities for insufficient stamps and the same is hit by the doctrine of lispendens and sought the dismissal of the suit.

4. Considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the suit was dismissed on 30.07.1998. As against the same, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the Principal Subordinate court, Salem. Two interim applications for amending the plaint and letting in additional evidence were filed by the plaintiffs during the appeal. Both the applications were dismissed. As against the rejection of permission to amend the plaint, CRP No 2002/2001 was filed. The CRP was allowed by this Court without going into the merits granting liberty to the defendant to raise all the defence. Subsequently, the 3rd plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the appeal and his daughters were impleaded as appellants/plaintiffs 4 to 6 in the appeal. Again another application seems to have been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence after amendment and it was also rejected. After hearing the parties, the first appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

5. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

"(i) Whether the Courts below are right in upholding the cancellation of the settlement deed under Ex.B-3, when the power to revoke is not available to the defendant? and

(ii) When the defendant had admitted the title of the plaintiff and had instituted a suit for partition, whether the Courts below are right in holding that plaintiff No.3 has not title to the property?"

6. The counsel for the appellants assailing the judgment and decrees of the courts below contended that it is well settled preposition that a settlement deed cannot be revoked except with the intervention of the court and relied upon the judgments in 2004 (3) CTC 9 (Govindaraju v. Rath