JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the appellant / plaintiff and the respondent herein is the respondent / defendant before the Court below.

Both are brothers.

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

3. The brief facts, as referred to in the plaint, are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant are the children of one Mr.Govindasamy Vanniyar. According to this plaintiff, the suit property belongs to him, by virtue of the settlement deed, dated 15.12.2003. The plaintiff further submits that, ever since date of settlement deed, the suit property has been in his actual physical possession, and that the revenue records are also standing in his name. This plaintiff submits that, since the defendant has interfered with the possession of their father and compelled their father to divide the property, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.90 of 2002, by contending that the suit property belongs to the joint family. In the said suit, the said Govindasamy Vanniyar has set up a defence that, the suit property is his absolute property. Considering his defence, the partition suit in O.S.No.90 of 2002 was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff as well as the defendant's father, viz.,Govindasamy Vanniyar, died on 18.07.2009. However, even on the date of death of their father, the defendant has falsely given a police complaint, against this plaintiff, that death of their father was not the natural death. Not stopping with that, the defendant has also interfered with plaintiff's agricultural activity. More particularly, on 03.07.2011 the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for a relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

4. The Brief averment in the written statement is as follows:-

This defendant submits that he used to send his earnings to his father, and only out of his earnings, some of the properties have been purchased. However, the defendant's father on the instigation of his wife has denied the share in the property, which affected the relationship between the defendant and his father. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff herein has filed a suit for partition by contending that the suit property is the joint family property. However, the said suit was dismissed. Against which, the plaintiff did not prefer an appeal. However, this defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.93 of 2006, before the II Additional District Court, Thanjavur, which factum was suppressed by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, since there was an altercation between the members of their family, a police complaint came to be filed by the defendant's wife. After that, due to Mediation, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff, the defendant and their parents. Based upon the Mediation, a partition took place on 03.10.2005 and the same was reduced into writing and all the sharers have signed in the document. As per the said settlement, the parties were agreed to withdraw the criminal cases. However, after withdrawal of the criminal cases, the plaintiff as well as their parents retracted from their promise. This defendant submits that, since the plaintiff is a party to the said document, he is estopped to dispute the same. The defendant further submits that the very execution of the settlement deed is disputed. It is his further submission that, even if the settlement deed is executed, it has not been acted upon. Therefore, the defendant contends that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and one document was marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. 6. After considering the submissions of either side and upon oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court