JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.20 of 2019, dated 01.09.2021, on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

2. The suit is for declaration and for permanent injunction.

3. Originally, the first plaintiff has laid a suit against his father V.K.Parasuram and his brother Selvaraj in O.S.No.608 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul and subsequently the suit was transferred to the Principal District Court and was taken on file in O.S.No.20 of 2019.

4. Pending suit, the first defendant had died and his third son Soundararaja and his daughters Vijaya and Rathina were impleaded as defendants 3 to 5. The daughter and the son of the first plaintiff got themselves impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3. Admittedly, the suit properties were owned by the first defendant – father of the first plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5.

5. The case of the first plaintiff is that the first defendant out of his love and affection for the first plaintiff, executed a gift settlement deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the first plaintiff vide deed dated 02.04.2008 and handed over the possession of the properties, that the first defendant, who was residing with the second defendant, due to the presssure and force applied by the second defendant, had cancelled the settlement deed, vide Gift Settlement cancellation deed on 11.04.2008, that the gift deed had come into effect and as such, it was not open to the settlor to cancel it, that the cancellation deed which was executed unilaterally without consent and knowledge of the settlee, is not valid, that when the plaintiff had applied for name transfer in respect of the suit properties, he came to know about the cancellation deed, that the first defendant was forced to execute number of other documents in favour of one Gnanavel – brother-in-law of the second defendant's son which includes the sale agreement on the date of cancellation, that the sale agreement had been created only to create an impression that the alleged cancellation deed had been acted upon and as such, the alleged sale agreement is a fraudulent document and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of the gift settlement deed dated 02.04.2008 executed by his father – first defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from claiming the rents from the tenants in the suit properties and for declaration that the alleged cancellation deed No.805/2008, dated 11.04.2008 is ab-initio-void. 6. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement jointly, raising a defence that the settlement deed dated 02.04.2008, registered on 10.04.2008 is a fraudulent document and the same was obtained by force, coercion and undue influence, that the fist defendant had never intended to give the properties to the first plaintiff, that the first defendant on the very next day has executed a settlement cancellation deed dated 11.04.2008 and the said factum would go to show that the document dated 02.04.2008 was not acted upon nor intended to acted upon, that a panchayat was convening and there was a mediation among the family members wherein the first plaintiff was given a cash of Rs.12,00,000/- and 8 items of properties, that the first plaintiff had executed a family release deed on 09.06.2008 before a Notary Public and witnesses, but before registering the said document, he had rushed to the Court and filed the above suit, that the first defendant has then executed a registered gift settlement deed in respect of the first item of the suit properties and other properties in favour of the second defendant and placed him in the possession of the properties.

7. The second defendant, in his additional written statement, has further averred that the first defendant has also executed two settlement deeds on 20.06.2008, one in favour of the first plaint