JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

[Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated 01.12.2021, made in O.S.No.223 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul.]

The unsuccessful 7th and 8th defendants, in O.S.No.223 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, are the appellants before us. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein / plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and for declaration to declare the sale deed, dated 09.05.2013 in Document No.1457/2013 in favour of the appellants as null and void and further, to declare the settlement deed, dated 05.06.2015, in document No.1758/2015 executed by the appellants also to be null and void.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaint in brief as set out by the first respondent / plaintiff before the trial Court, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter of one Rengasamy Gowder and the defendants 1 to 7 are the siblings of the plaintiff. During the life time of father – Rengasamy Gowder, a settlement deed was executed on 17.10.2012 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the property as well. However, in 2015, taking advantage of the ill-health of the father, the defendants 1 to 5 took away the plaintiff's father and brought about the cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.285 of 2013, which was withdrawn in order to file a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18927 of 2015 and it was dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the competent civil Court. Thereafter, the present suit in O.S.No.223 of 2018 came to be filed.

4. The said suit was contested by the appellants. The 9th defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 5, 6 and 8 and the same, in brief, is as follows:

The defendants denied the fact that the plaintiff was put in possession and according to the defendants, the settlement deed was not valid as the plaintiff did not take steps to discharge the mortgage loan on the suit property. The 8th defendant alone had to discharge the mortgage loan and only thereafter, the property was settled by the defendants 8 and 9 and an earlier suit for the very same relief was withdrawn by the plaintiff and was also dismissed. The suit was therefore barred by principles of Order XXIII C.P.C. as well as the law of limitation.

5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and 21 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A21, on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, 3 witnesses were marked as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

6. The trial Court, after analysing the pleadings of the parties to the suit, framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession?

3. To what relief?

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court held that the suit was neither barred by limitation nor hit by the principles of res judicata or Order XXIII C.P.C.; the Writ Court was approached only after withdrawing the earlier suit in O.S.No.285 of 2013 and in any event, a unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff was not valid in the eye of law and consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for. However, the plaintiff was directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,47,258/- to the 8th defendant.

8. The present Appeal is at the instance of the defendants 8 and 9, who are admittedly third party purchasers of the suit property, after the deed of cancellation was executed by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6, thereby, cancelling the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff.

9. The grounds of challenge in the a