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 wi