The legal principle of approbate and reprobate was established, emphasizing that a person cannot both accept and reject the same instrument.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram, dated 31.01.2012 in reversing the well considered judgement in O.S.No.52 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram, dated 12.12.2005.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Kuppusamy Chettiar. He died intestate and his properties were inherited by his sons. They divided the property among themselves through a partition deed dated 27.10.1949. The suit properties and certain other properties were allotted to the share of Perumal Chettiar, who is the father of the plaintiff. Thereby, he became the absolute owner of the suit properties.

3. The said Perumal Chettiar, through a settlement deed dated 28.9.1970, marked as Ex.A1, settled the properties in favour of the plaintiff and her sisters Govindammal, Dhanam Ammal and Bhangaru Ammal. The other three sisters were minors at the relevant point of time and the plaintiff was appointed as the guardian for her three sisters under the said document. As per this settlement deed, the plaintiff was given a life interest and the vested remainder was given to her children absolutely. It was further pleaded that this settlement deed was filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal and this document was acted upon when the orders were passed by the Tribunal on 9.6.1991. This order was marked as Ex.A2.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is entitled for a life interest in the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement. They admitted the relationship between the parties and also the execution of the settlement deed dated 28.9.1970. However, they took a stand that this settlement deed was never acted upon and this settlement deed was created only for the purpose of getting an exemption under the Land Reforms Act. It was further pleaded that the father continued to deal with the properties and was in complete control and enjoyment of the properties and the patta also stood in his name till his demise. The father, Perumal Chettiar died on 12.4.2001 and according to the defendants, all the legal heirs are entitled for a share in the suit properties. For this purpose, he executed a Will dated 26.2.2001, marked as Ex.B37, whereby the suit properties and all the other properties were directed to be kept under the control of his wife, who was given the discretion to allot the properties in favour of the four daughters. In view of the same, the defendants took a stand that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is unsustainable and the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the co-owners of the property and accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit as prayed for, through Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an appeal in A.S. No. 38 of 2006. They also filed a petition for additional evidence and it was allowed and Ex. B38 to Ex. B41were marked at the stage of appeal.

7. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the Trial Court, allowed the appeal through Judgment and Decree dated 31.1.2012 and thereby the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

8. When the Second Appeal was admitted, the foll