JUDGMENT

This appeal suit has been filed challenging the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.162 of 2009 by the learned 3rd Additional District and Session Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056.

2. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents. The fifth respondent is the legal heir of the deceased first appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.162 of 2009 was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the second defendant are the sons and daughter of one Alaganandam.

The first defendant is the wife of the said Alaganandam. The fifth respondent herein is another daughter of the said Alaganandam. The said Alaganandam had purchased the suit property by the registered sale deed dated 10.04.1980, out of his own income in the name of his wife viz., the first defendant. He had constructed a house out of his retirement benefits. He died on 19.12.1987. After his demise, they were continuously living in the suit property. The second defendant and the fifth respondent herein got married. During their marriage, they were sufficiently presented with jewels and other articles. After the demise of the said Alaganandam, the plaintiffs had developed the property by digging up Bore Well, plastering work and erection of car shed. Out of love and affection, the first defendant had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 06.01.1995, thereby settled a portion of the suit and building thereon in the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. By way of second registered Settlement Deed dated 01.03.1995, she also settled the remaining property in favour of the plaintiffs. Both the settlement deeds were duly accepted by the plaintiffs and were acted upon. Both the settlement deeds are unconditional and no obligations were imposed upon the plaintiffs. In pursuant to the settlement deeds, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property. The second defendant was deserted by her husband and as such, she is living with the first defendant. It was not objected to by the plaintiffs, she being their sister. Utilizing the said circumstances, the second defendant started poisoning the mind of the first defendant and made to execute two Cancellation Deeds dated 12.06.2006 registered vide Document Nos.4272 of 2006 and 4273 of 2006, thereby the settlement deeds dated 06.01.1995 and 01.03.1995 were cancelled. Thereafter, the first defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 19.06.2008 in favour of the second defendant. The cancellation of settlement deeds were executed after a period of ten years.

Therefore, both the cancellation deeds are not valid. Hence, the suit. 4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed a written statement stating that the first defendant was running a Mess in the police quarters and also conducted monthly chit since the income derived from her husband viz., Alaganandam was not sufficient to maintain the family. Therefore, out of her own income, she had purchased the suit property by the sale deed dated 10.04.1980 registered vide Document No.1164 of 1980. Thereafter, she started construction of house. After completion of construction, they were living in the suit property. After the demise of her husband, the plaintiffs never invested any money for renovation of the suit property. In fact, the defendants never lived with the plaintiffs comfortably under the care and custody of them. After marriage of the plaintiffs, they are living separately in different places. Therefore, the first defendant never intended to settle the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs approached the first defendant to right a Will in favour of their children in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the first defendant, with an intention to execute a Will, had come to the Registrar Office and signed the same on 06