JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2021 made in A.S.No.38 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC) Mettur, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 10.03.2021 made in O.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Mettur.)

1. The defendants are the appellants challenging the concurrent Judgement and Decree passed against them. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, seeking to declare the settlement deed dated 17.02.2009 executed by Lakshmiammal in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and for a preliminary decree for partition by dividing the suit property into two equal shares and allotting one share in favour of the plaintiff and also seeking injunction from alienation.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's father, Perumal Iyer. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the two sons of the said Perumal Iyer. The property was jointly enjoyed by Perumal Iyer, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant.

4. The plaintiff would submit that after the death of his father, his mother, the 1st defendant and himself were jointly enjoying the property and after her lifetime, it was only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who were enjoying the property. Since certain misunderstanding had cropped up between them, the plaintiff desired to have the properties divided and therefore a Panchayat was convened on 10.11.2013, wherein, the 1st defendant was advised to divide the property and allot the plaintiff's half share.

5. The plaintiff would contend that the 1st defendant refused to accept the advice and he proceeded to settle the property on the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff was advised to approach the Court. The plaintiff thereafter took the encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property and during this search he came to learn that on 17.02.2009, the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant has executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant which is registered on the file of the Jalakandapuram Sub Registrar's Office as Doc.No.406/2009. The plaintiff therefore issued a notice to the defendants to which a reply dated 17.03.2014 was sent contending false allegations.

6. The plaintiff would submit that the settlement deed is a fraudulent one, since the settlement deed purported to convey the entire property including the plaintiff's share by way of a settlement. The plaintiff would submit that the settlement deed would not bind his share in the property. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

7. The 2nd defendant had filed a written statement, which is adopted by the 1st defendant. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit schedule property after the death of Perumal Iyer, 24 years ago. After his death, the property had been partitioned between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. It was partitioned amongst the sons, however, they would go on to state that Lakshmiammal, the wife of Perumal Iyer had taken care of her husband's share and thereafter under a settlement deed dated 17.02.2009 had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant has taken possession of the property and is in possession of the same. He has also taken out an application for having the revenue records transferred in the name. Therefore, it is their contention that the plaintiff has no share in the property and the suit should be dismissed.

8. The learned Sub Judge, Mettur had framed the issues and the plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and one Govindan and P.R.Uthirasamy was examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. The plaintiff had ma