The unsuccessful defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal challenging the decree granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Ramasamy Chettiyar. He had executed a settlement deed in favour of the Plaintiff temple on 20.08.1974 and on the same day registered the documents and handed over the possession to the temple. The properties being the landed properties, the plaintiff temple leased the same to one Soundrapandian and he had been in possession of the same by paying the lease. It is stated that on 08.03.1993, the said Ramasamy Chettiar had unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed contrary to the provisions set out in the deed of settlement. Thereafter, on 24.01.1994, the said Ramasamy Chettiyar had sold the property to various third parties which are not binding on the Plaintiff. The said Ramasamy Chettiyar having settled the property in favour of the temple in the year 1974 has no right to cancel the same unilaterally, contrary to the terms of the settlement. After 19 years, as the subsequent purchasers from the said Ramasamy were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.

2. Resisting the suit, the defendant had filed the written statement denying the fact that settlement deed was acted upon. The case of the defendant is that the property was in possession of the said Ramasamy Chettiar. He had been in continuous enjoyment and sold the same to one S.T.Ganesan and from his Power Agent Mr.Jothilingam, the defendant had purchased the same for a valid consideration. Therefore, it was claimed that the Plaintiff cannot have any right.

3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, P.W.'s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.1 to 15 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.1 to 9 were marked. The trial Court, has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed by the defendant and the same was also dismissed. The Courts below concurrently held that the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and for injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration:

"(a) Whether the Government was the owner of the property on 20.08.74 i.e. the date of execution of the Settlement deed?

(b)Whether the Settlement deed executed by the defendant is valid under

the law?

(c) Whether the defendant was the absolute owner of the property on the date of execution of the settlement deed?

(d) Whether the Plaintiff has accepted the settlement?

(e)Whether the deed of settlement was acted upon?

(f) Whether the suit is barred by time?

(g) Whether not the judgment to be purely based upon secondary evidence?

(h)Whether the Plaintiff is the title holder on the date of the institution of the suit?

(i) Whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit?"

6. The question that has to be considered is that whether the cancellation deed alleged to have been executed by the original owner Ramasamy dated 08.03.1993, is legal and valid. It is the case of the appellant that he had purchased the property on 24.09.2007 from one Jyothilingam, who is the Power of Attorney of one S.T.Ganesan. The said S.T.Ganesan had purchased the property from Ramasamy Chettiar on 24.01.1994. It is the definite case of the Plaintiff which is a temple governed by Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, that the suit property is settled in favour of the temple as per Ex.A1 which is an irrevocable settlement deed executed by one Ramasamy Chettiyar. The execution of Settlement Deed cannot be disputed, as the said Ramasamy Chettiyar himself had attempted to cancel the same, after 19 yea