S.S. Sundar, J.

The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.361 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam is the appellant in this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal as plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.361 of 1991 before the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and for the consequential relief to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

3. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and respondents were impleaded as the legal heirs of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint are as follows:

3.1. The suit property belonged to the mother of the first plaintiff, who was the sole plaintiff, when the suit was filed. The first plaintiff's mother out of love and affection, executed a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff on 07.07.1975 under a registered document. The gift deed was irrevocable and that the first plaintiff took possession of the property. Patta was also changed in the name of first plaintiff. Since the first plaintiff was a public servant, he stayed away from the suit property and it was under the care of the first plaintiff's brother, one Ponnaiah Pillai.

3.2. The first plaintiff's father, by name, Parasuram Pillai, along with his other legal heirs, except first plaintiff, executed a mortgage. Since dispute arose between them in respect of the said transaction, the defendant refused for redemption. The defendant after getting a sale deed from the legal heirs of the said Parasuram Pillai, trespassed into the suit property in October-1988. The first plaintiff was always in possession and possession was never handed over to the defendant, as alleged by him. In response to the notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant came forward with a false reply with untenable allegations and set up fraudulent document. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has no right in the suit property and that he was never in enjoyment of the same till he trespassed illegally. Since he has set up some fraudulent documents, the suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief of recovery of possession was necessitated by the plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. It is pertinent to mention that the fact that the suit property belonged to first plaintiff's mother Nayagathammal is admitted. It is stated that the said Nayagathammal had five sons and three daughters. It is also stated that the one of the five sons of Nayagathammal, by name, Subramaniam Pillai executed a release deed and went away from the family. It is also stated that one of the daughters, by name, Shanmugathammal died. It is the specific contention of the defendant that the plaintiff, by misrepresentation and without disclosing the details of documents, has obtained thumb impression in an already prepared settlement deed. It is also stated in the written statement that Nayagathammal never desired to execute settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff by neglecting other sons and daughters. In the written statement, the plaintiffs' contention of possession was also denied. It is also the case of the defendant that the first plaintiff, however, manipulated Patta in his name. It is the case of the defendant that the settlement was obtained by the first plaintiff by misrepresentation and fraud. It is further contended by the defendant that Naygathammal cancelled the settlement deed dated 07.07.1975 on 07.08.1975, after coming to know about the fraud. The defendant further contended that Nayagathammal executed an 'othi' dated 08.09.1976 in favour of the defendant and handed over possession. The defendant further pleaded that a further "othi" deed was executed by Nayagathammal on 28.09.1977. It is also the defendant's case that the defendant has been in enjoyment of the property ever since, the execution of 'othi' deed in favour of the defe