The main legal point established in the judgment is that a deed of conveyance shall not be cancelled without putting the person on notice, and the court considered the impact of the cancellation deed on the plaintiff's accrued right in the suit property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.10.2014 passed in O.S.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.)

1. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in O.S.No.53 of 2010, the defendants 3 to 5 have come up with this Appeal Suit.

2. As per the plaint averments, the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's grand mother Chinnathayammal by virtue of the sale deed, dated 05.06.1935 and 16.02.1936. In the partition effected between the sons of Chinnathayammal viz., D.C.Kandasamy, D.C.Ponnurangam, D.C.Arumugam (D1) and D.C.Lakshmanan, dated 19.02.1955, the 'C' Schedule property was allotted to the 1st defendant who is the father of the plaintiff, the defendants 2, 6 to 8. The wife of the 1st defendant died during the year 2003. The defendants 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased son D.A.Azhagappan.

3. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant executed a Will, dated 10.05.1983 in favour of his grandchildren born through his daughters Kalyani and Chitra pertaining to the land at Vellaegoundan palayam in S.No.517/1, measuring 792 square feet. However, he cancelled the same on 13.07.2004. Subsequently, on 30.03.1983, the 1st defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughters, D.A. Aruna and Kalamani/the 2nd defendant pertaining to property at Chinnasamy street. On 22.08.1986, the 1st defendant executed a Settlement Deed, in favour of his daughter D.A.Chitra (7th defendant) pertaining to the land measuring about 2 ½ cents at Virupatchipuram Village in S.No.434. While so, the defendants 3 to 5, the legal heirs of the deceased son of the 1st defendant by name Azhagappan filed a suit for partition against the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and his other legal heirs in O.S.No.219 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri which ended in a compromise decree and the properties were allotted to the defendants 3 to 5 in S.No.304/2d. The 3rd defendant sold the same to one Valarmathi by way of two sale deeds, dated 17.02.2003 and 20.05.2003. The plaintiff made contribution out of his income earned from his contract work in Adidravidar Welfare Department and stone quarry to the first defendant and helped in constructing shops, buildings in the suit property. The plaintiff has also spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for the treatment of the 1st defendant. After the death of his mother, since the 1st defendant gave properties by way of Settlement Deeds to others, except the plaintiff, the 1st defendant executed a Settlement Deed on 29.11.2007 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit properties. The plaintiff accepted the same and the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant also executed a Settlement Deed, dated 02.01.2008 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of ¼ share of the property purchased by him jointly on 12.03.1956. The plaintiff accepted the same and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. The plaintiff settled the properties which were given to him by way of Settlement Deed, dated 29.11.2007 and 02.01.2008 in favour of his wife on 29.06.2010 and the same were resettled to the plaintiff on 29.07.2010. Having grudge over the growth of plaintiff, the 2nd and 3rd defendants by taking advantage of the age and unsound state of mind, instigated the 1st defendant to cancel the settlement deed, dated 29.11.2007 and the 1st defendant cancelled the same on 26.08.2010. The cancellation deed, according to the plaintiff, is not valid in law and will not bind him. The 1st defendant is not entitled to revoke or cancel the Settlement Deed which was executed by him. The 1st defendant at the instigation of the defendants 2 to 5 executed three Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants 2, 4 and 5 in the suit 'C' Schedule Property and the same is not valid. The 1st defendant has no r