The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1066 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi are the appellants herein.

2. Pending the Second Appeal, the 1st and 13th appellants died. The legal representatives of the 1st appellant had been brought on record as 14th to 24th appellants and the 25th and 27th appellants had been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 13th appellant.

3. It must also be stated that the 1st respondent is actually sailing with the appellants. The 2nd respondent is also reported to have died issueless. The legal representatives of the 3rd respondent have been served but since nobody entered appearance and their names were printed in the cause list, to assist the Court, Ms. K.Priyadharshini, learned counsel had been appointed as amicus to appear on behalf of the said 4th and 5th respondents.

4. By Judgment dated 30.04.1993, the learned District Munisf, Kallakurichi, decreed O.S.No. 1066 of 1987.

5. The defendants then filed A.S.No. 160 of 1996. The first appeal came up for consideration before the Sub Court at Kallkurichi. By Judgment dated 27.01.1997, the learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal suit and dismissed the original suit. This had necessitated the plaintiffs to file the present Second Appeal.

6. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the settlement deed Ex.A-1 dated 26.12.1960 is not valid, when one of the executants namely the second defendant has admitted the execution of the settlement deed and when especially she has not questioned the same till 12.12.1987?;

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law in accepting the evidence of the second defendant quite against and new to her pleadings and especially when she has not pleaded that the settlement deed is vitiated by circumstances like misrepresentation, fraud etc.?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to hold in law that the revocation deed Ex.B-4, dated 12.12.1987 cancelling the settlement deed Ex.A-1 is against the provisions of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act?

4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to hold in law that the second defendant is estopped from giving evidence quite against and new to her pleadings in her written statement?”

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. K.Priyadharshini, learned counsel appointed amicus for the 4th and 5th respondents.

8. The suit in O.S.No. 1066 of 1987 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of 14/15th share in the suit properties.

9. The suit properties originally belonged to Ayyamperumal Maistry. He had three sons Muniyan Maistry, Pothan Maistry and Krishna Maistry.

Muniyan Maistry was married to Logambal. They did not have any children. Pothan Maistry was married to Chellammal as his second wife. Krishna Maistry died leaving behind two sons. Govindan and Chinnapillai. Govindan died a batchelor, while Chinna Pillai died leaving behind his widow and children.

10. The suit properties had fallen to the share of Muniyan Maistry.

Muniyan Maistry and his wife Logambal executed a settlement deed of the suit schedule properties on 26.12.1960 in favour of Chellammal, the second wife of Pothan Maistry. The settlement was by a registered document. On the death of Chellammal and Krishna Maistry, the properties devolved on to the plaintiffs and to the first defendant.

11. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 14/15th undivided share in the suit properties. The 1st defendant was another son of Chellammal. The 2nd defendant was one of the settlors Logammbal. She had revoked the settlement deed by a registered document dated 12.11.1987. After such revocation of the settlement deed, she had sold the suit schedule property to the 3rd defendant by sale deed dated 27.11.1987. It was under these circumstances, claiming that the 2nd defendant had no righ