JUDGMENT

The second appeal is preferred against the against the decree and judgment, dated 16.07.2019, in A.S.No.77 of 2018 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, which confirmed the decree and judgment, dated 27.04.2018, passed in O.S.No.370 of 2009, on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The 1st defendant is the appellant herein, the plaintiff is the 1st respondent herein and the 2nd defendant is the 2nd respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as Plaintiff and Defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff had filed the suit against 1st defendant father in O.S.No.370 of 2009 to declare the Cancellation Deed dated 29.08.2008 in Doc No.5068/2008, to direct the 2nd defendant to cancel the said Cancellation Deed and the suit was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st defendant father had preferred the First Appeal in A.S.No.77 of 2018 and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st defendant father has preferred this second appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiff son is that the suit property originally belongs to the 1st defendant’s mother Seshammal and she had executed a registered settlement deed dated 02.06.1983 in favour of the 1st defendant and thereafter the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter the 1st defendant and his wife had purchased some properties but the same was purchased in the name of his wife. Both the 1st defendant and his wife had intended to settle the properties in the name of their three children namely Christopher Sathiyaraj, Henry, Ranjith Amalan (plaintiff herein). The 1st defendant’s wife had executed three settlement deeds dated 22.10.2007 marked as Ex.A13,14,and 15 in favour of the first son Christopher Sathiyaraj. Again the 1st defendant wife had executed two settlement deeds dated 22.10.2007 marked as Ex.16 and 17 in favour of the second son P.Henry. The 1st defendant father had executed a settlement deed dated 22.10.2007 marked as Ex.A1 in favour of the third son Ranjith Amalan, the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff and other sons had taken possession of the property, then changed the name in the patta, changed the name in property tax and other taxes and revenue records and was enjoying the same. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s wife namely Shella had preferred criminal complaint against the plaintiff’s father, mother and other two sons alleging dowry harassment and sexual harassment and the case is pending. Hence, the entire family was agitated and with anger the 1st defendant had cancelled the settlement vide Cancellation Deed dated 29.08.2008 marked as Ex.A4. Challenging the same the present suit is filed and the same was allowed. The 1st defendant had preferred appeal and the same was dismissed, hence the present second appeal. 5. The case of the 1st defendant is that he had not executed the alleged settlement deed. The payment of house tax and water tax is just one month before the filing of suit and the same was procured without the knowledge of the 1st defendant. The allegation of dowry and sexual harassment is mud slinging. The 1st defendant was aged 72 years and such allegation is false. The pendency of Domestic Violence has no relevancy to this case. The execution of cancellation deed is true, but the document dated 22.10.2007 is not settlement though the nomenclature has been given. The defendant had rightly cancelled the same. No rights in presenti are given to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant and his wife are entitled to live until their life time. Hence the intention of the 1st defendant is to execute testamentary disposition and not settlement. The plaintiff had not produced the original documents. The suit is bad in law for not issuing notice under section 80 of CPC. The highly vexatious allegations would reveal the bad intention and character of the plaintiff. The 1st defen