The settlement deed dated 23.09.1981 is valid and irrevocable, granting the plaintiff entitlement to the property after the death of the settlor, and the plaintiff's failure to maintain the settlor does not disentitle him to the property.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000 passed in A.S.No.18 of 1998, on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992, made in O.S.No. 95 of 1985, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Arcot at Tirupattur.

2. Parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the first defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are his brothers. Items 1 and 2 of the suit property belonged to the first defendant and the same is presently in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was assisting the first defendant in his business and also looking after him by taking care of all his needs and as the defendants 2 and 3 are well placed and on account of love and affection, the first defendant settled the first item of suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of a settlement deed dated 23.09.1981 and thereby, handed over the possession of the same, in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff and the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the first item as well as the second item of the suit property and only through the second item of the suit property, the first item could be enjoyed and while so, taking advantage of the misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant, subsequent to the settlement deed above stated, it is stated that the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit property and hence, the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants and also issued a notice dated 26.10.1985 and to the same, a reply has been sent by the first defendant containing false allegations, as if he had cancelled the settlement deed by way of a deed dated 02.09.1985 and that the suit property are in his possession and enjoyment and the defendants are not entitled to deny the right of the plaintiff in respect of the first item of the suit property and also deny the right of the suit property wholly enjoyed by the plaintiff and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is denied that the plaintiff had been assisting the first defendant in his business and looking after his needs and therefore, the first defendant, on account of love and affection had executed a settlement deed dated 23.09.1981, in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the first item of the suit property and it is false to state that pursuant thereof, the plaintiff and the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the items 1 and 2 of the suit property and false to state that the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's right to the suit property on account of misunderstanding. The suit property absolutely belong to the first defendant and the plaintiff had represented to the first defendant that he would look after him and maintain him throughout his life and at his instigation, the first defendant executed a Will on 23.09.1981, styling it as a settlement deed. But, it is only a Will and the first defendant has reserved all the rights of the title, possession and enjoyment in the suit property and he had no intention to effect any settlement of the same, in favour of the plaintiff and the same had not been accepted or acted upon and by way of the said document, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the first item of the suit property and after the execution of the above said document, the plaintiff behaved indifferently and stopped maintaining the first defendant and did not provide food or shelter, and the first defendant had no reasons to exclude his other sons and settle the property only in favour of the plaintiff and the settlement deed relied upon by the plaintiff is not true and a valid docu