JUDGMENT

The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal.

2. The first and second respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title over the suit property and for possession after removing the super structure, if any, put up in the suit property and for other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property along with other properties originally belonged to their grandfather R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi. The further case of the plaintiffs is that he executed a registered Settlement Deed on 25.04.1977 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiffs by appointing their father Venugopal Padayachi as their guardian. According to the plaintiffs, the settlement deed was acted upon and the said R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi retained life interest and vested reminder was given to the plaintiffs. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after nearly 8 years after the death of the settlor, all of a sudden, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and they started putting up thatched house and thereby denied the right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the suit came to be filed seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

4. The case of the first defendant is that R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi had a large extent of property measuring about 64 cents. He had four sons namely Ganesan, Subramanian, Venugopal and Vaithyanathan. The plaintiffs father's name is Venugopal Padayachi. The further case of the defendants is that the said R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi divided 63 cents into four equal shares among himself and his three sons viz., Ganesan, Subramanian and Venugopal by means of an unregistered partition list. Thereafter, he is said to have cancelled the partition list orally and had executed three settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, one Balu, who is the son of Ganesan and the defendants on 07.08.1984 (Exs.B1 to B3). It is stated that these three settlement deeds were duly accepted and acted upon. Thereafter, the respective shares were utilised and huts were put up and the entire 21 cents was fenced on all the four sides. It is further stated that the defendants also started paying the house tax for their respective houses and also paid the kist to the concerned authority. The defendants have taken a specific stand that the document dated 25.04.1977 (Ex.A1) was not acted upon and in any case, the content of the document makes it clear that it is only a Will and not a Settlement deed as claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendants had sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:

1. 25.04.1977 njjpapl;l Kj;Jf;Fkhurhkp gilahr;rp vGjp itj;Js;s brl;oy; bkd;l;

gj;jpuk; cz;ikahdjh?

2. 07.08.1984 njjpapl;l brlo; y; bkd;l;

gj;jpuk; cz;ikahdjh?

3. tHf;Fr; brhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpakhdjh?

4. thjpf;F tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj;

jf;fjh?

5. thjpf;F RthjPd ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj;

jf;fjh?

6. thjpf;F vjph;fhy kfr{y; Mjhak;

fpilf;fj; jf;fjh?

7. thjpf;F vd;d ghpfhuk; tH';fj; jf;fJ?

nkYk; 03.08.2010y; TLjy; vGtpdhf;fs;

tidag;gl;L cs;sd/

1. tHf;Fr; brhj;J bghJf;FLk;gr; brhj;jh? 2. tHf;Fr; brhj;J Kj;Jf;Fkhurhkp gilahr;rpapd; ghfj;jpw;F xJf;fg;gl;ljh?

6. The Trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the categorical conclusion that Ex.A1 is a settlement deed and that the same has been acted upon and the subsequent settlement deeds marked as Exs.B1 to B3, to the extent it dealt with the 16 cents, which was the subject matter of Ex.A1, is invalid. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for by them.

7. The defendants, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Panruti in A.S.No.16 of 2011. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the Trial Court, found tha