J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 27, 2021 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2019 by the 'Subordinate Court, Paramathi' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 21, 2019 passed in O.S.No.99 of 2012 by the 'District Munsif Court, Paramathi' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE:

st nd

3. The 1 and 2 plaintiffs are the wife and the daughter of st nd

1 defendant respectively. The 2 defendant is the daughter of one st Karuppayee, with whom the 1 defendant was in a relationship with, nd st however 2 defendant was not born to 1 defendant. The Suit Property is st st separate property of the 1 defendant. On September 7, 1983, the 1 st defendant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 1 plaintiff in respect of Suit Property and the same was accepted and acted upon. Title st Deeds were handed over to the 1 plaintiff and she got into joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property along with 1 defendant. Revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs and they have been st paying Kist. The 1 plaintiff had filed a Suit in O.S.No.174 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramathi, seeking permanent injunction st inter alia against the said Karuppayee’s father, who is 1 plaintiff’s neighbouring land owner too, and obtained Decree dated March 26, 1999 in her favour in respect of Suit Property.

st

3.1. While the said Settlement Deed stipulated that the 1 nd defendant cannot cancel it, on the ill advice of said Karuppayee, 2 st defendant and others, the 1 defendant cancelled it vide Cancellation Deed dated February 22, 2012 and executed two Settlement Deeds, one in favour nd nd of 2 plaintiff and another in favour of 2 defendant. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs of the Suit Property under the guise of the aforesaid three documents, which are void. On April 29, 2012, the defendants and their men attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs of the Suit Property. Hence the Suit for declaration that the said Cancellation Deed is null and void, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or evicting or dispossessing the plaintiffs of the Suit Property, for costs and for other reliefs. To be noted, permanent injunction is sought for without any prejudice to the 1 defendant’s joint possession and st enjoyment with 1 plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CASE:

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments. According to the defendants, Suit Property is self-acquired st st st property of 1 defendant. The 1 plaintiff used to often quarrel with the 1 defendant and leave for her maternal house. Hence, the Settlement Deed dated September 7, 1983 was executed sham and nominally on the st condition that she shall live along with the 1 defendant, that too on the st st insistence of the 1 plaintiff. However, the 1 plaintiff did not live along st with the 1 defendant and she never got into joint possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Therefore, the Settlement Deed dated st September 7, 1983 was never acted upon. Since the 1 plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Settlement Deed st dated September 7, 1983, 1 defendant has got every right to cancel it. The st st

1 defendant married the said Karuppayee with the consent of 1 plaintiff nd in vaigasi month of Tamil calendar in 1977 and in their wedlock, the 2 defendant was born. The Cancellation Deed dated February 22, 2012, st executed for equitable division of Suit Property between 1 plaintiff and nd

2 defendant, is perfectly valid. Accordingly, the defendants sought to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT:

nd

5. At trial, Perumayee (2 plaintiff) was examined as P.W.1 st and Palaniammal (1 plaintiff) was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-

st A.19 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Thasi @ Sukkada