JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ponneri dated 27.09.2021 and made in AS.No.49/2019 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri dated 11.10.2017 and made in OS.No.12/2006.)

1. Defendants 1 to 4 in the suit in OS.No.12/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri, are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

2. The 1st respondent in this Second Appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit in OS.No.12/2006 for a declaration, declaring the document of Settlement created by the 1st defendant/1st appellant in favour of defendants 2 and 3/appellants 2 and 3 herein, on 17.01.2005 as sham and nominal document and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property which is described as 16 feet passage comprised in S.No.93/1C2 in Ambattur Taluk, Naravaikuppam Panchayat, is the property in respect of which the plaintiff is having a right to use the same. It is admitted that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather by name Ekambara Chettiyar. By virtue of a Will executed by the said Ekambara Chettiyar on 24.05.1988, it is stated that the plaintiff was allotted ''A'' Schedule property measuring an extent of 1.67 acres of agricultural lands including the 16 feet passage to reach Nataraja Rice Mill. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has no other right in the ''A'' Schedule property referred to in the Will except a right to have access in the 16 feet passage.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant sold one of the properties allotted to him under a Will to one Eswaran and another property which was adjacent to the plaintiff's property, to one Mohan, the 5th defendant herein under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.02.2002. Even though the 1st defendant has sold the properties allotted to him under the Will in favour of third parties, it is contended by the plaintiff that he had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the other appellants on the premises that he is the exclusive owner of the property.

5. The 1st defendant filed a suit in OS.No.1115/1997 before the learned District Munsiff, Thiruvotriyur, for permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein in any manner, interfering with the 1st defendant's user and enjoyment of the suit property and for cost. It is admitted that the said suit was dismissed for non- prosecution. It was thereafter, the plaintiff herein filed a suit in OS.No.22/2006 for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant herein from in any manner dealing with the property or encumbering the property. Since the 1st defendant has executed a Settlement Deed dated 17.01.2006 in favour of other appellants/defendants 2 to 4, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein was constrained to file the present suit in OS.No.12/2006 challenging the Settlement Deed, as the Settlement Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 claiming exclusive title to the 16 feet pathway.

6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in OS.No.12/2006 holding that the plaintiff himself has admitted that the 1st defendant is also provided access with regard to the 16 feet pathway and that the suit property is with reference to the said 16 feet pathway which was mentioned in the Will, produced as Ex.A.1. The Trial Court failed to note that the plaintiff never disputed the 1st defendant's right to have access through 16 feet pathway. The reasoning given by the Trial Court for dismissing the suit is unacceptable having regard to the facts admitted and the documents which are not in dispute. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff preferred an Appeal in AS.No.49/2019 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri. The Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and held that