Settlement deeds once executed and unrevoked remain binding; subsequent claims referencing earlier settlements are invalid if they lack merit.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant is the appellant against whom the plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of declaration. The first plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction and later impleaded the second plaintiff due to consequent sale in his favour and the relief has been amended for adding the relief of declaration.

The trial Court has decreed the suit and the first Appeal preferred by the defendant also got dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Now the defendant has filed this Second Appeal by challenging the same.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The suit items are comprised to an extent of 0.85 cents in S.No.277/2 and 0.09 cents in S.A.No.277/4 situated at Bommaiyarpalayam, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belonged to one Sarangapani Naicker. He had sold the said properties in favour of one Arumuga Gounder on 19.05.1955 through a registered sale deed. Arumuga Gounder was in enjoyment of the same by changing patta in his name in Patta No.117. Subsequently, Arumuga Gounder had executed a sale deed in favour of Govinda Gounder through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1975. The said Govinda Gounder has been in enjoyment of the same and later settled the suit property in favour of his daughter who is the first plaintiff herein through a registered settlement deed dated 15.12.1980.

2.1 Govinda Gounder died in the year 1983. In pursuant to the settlement deed, the first plaintiff was in enjoyment of the same and the defendant was also aware of the same. As the defendant had started to claim an undue right in the suit property and caused disturbance to the enjoyment of the first plaintiff, she had filed a suit for permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of the suit, the suit properties have been sold in favour of the second plaintiff on 20.09.2007 through a registered sale deed and thereafter, the second plaintiff had taken possession of the suit property and he is in enjoyment of the same. Hence, the suit has been subsequently amended by including the second plaintiff also as a party and also seeking the relief of declaration in favour of the second plaintiff.

3. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The settlement deed dated 15.12.1980 in favour of the first plaintiff is a fraudulent one and it has not been acted upon. Subsequently, the first plaintiff's father Govinda Gounder has executed different settlement deeds in favour of the first plaintiff and her sisters Lakshmi Devi and Mangalakshmi @ Pallipattammal on 04.05.1981 by executing separate settlement deeds. The first plaintiff has accepted the settlement deed dated 04.05.1981 and hence, she was estopped from claiming any right in pursuant to the earlier settlement deed dated 15.12.1980 and the first plaintiff has also sold the property in favour of one Vijayakumar on 29.12.1988 by citing her right derived from the settlement deed dated 04.05.1981. The first plaintiff has not been in enjoyment of the suit property individually in view of the settlement deed dated 15.12.1980 and the said settlement deed is non-est in law. The sisters of the first plaintiff viz., Lakshmi Devi and Mangalakshmi @ Pallipattammal have also sold the property obtained by them through a settlement deed dated 04.05.1981 in favour of Pounammal through a sale deed dated 16.06.1988 and the said Pounammal in