IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA S.A.No.809 of 2023 Chengalvarayan (died)

1. Revathi

2. Varalakshmi

3. Saravanan

4. Senthilkumar … Appellants / Defendants Vs Lakshmi . . . Respondent / Plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Decree and Judgment dated 21.02.2020 made in A.S.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the order dated 21.07.2012 in O.S.No.413 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

For Appellants : Mr.P. Kannan Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran Caveator counsel

JUDGMENT

The defendants who have concurrently suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction have filed this second appeal.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below.

The first defendant had passed away pending the first appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 5 in the appeal suit. The respondent herein had filed the suit O.S.No.413 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam against the deceased first defendant for a declaration and injunction. It was her case that the suit property belonged to her mother, Meenatchi Ammal, and the deceased first defendant was her maternal uncle. Her mother was given in marriage to one Kuppusamy. The respondent's father had asked the deceased first defendant to purchase the property at Ozhundiapet Village for which he had entrusted him with a considerable amount of money which he had got from the sale of his property. The deceased first defendant had sold his property to the plaintiff's mother, Meenatchi Ammal. However, a settlement deed dated 08.03.1976 was executed, taking into account the fact that the registration charges for sale was high. From the date of the settlement deed, Meenatchi Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. On 05.06.2007, Meenatchi Ammal had sold the property to the respondent herein for a valuable consideration. The respondent has got the revenue records mutated in her name. After the said sale, she is enjoying the same. It appears that the first defendant, taking advantage of his name in the revenue records, had created a sham and nominal of the document in favour of the first appellant herein. Therefore, the respondent had come forward with the suit in question.

4.The first defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia contending that he had actually obtained a loan from his sister Meenatchi Ammal towards this loan Meenatchi Ammal's husband Kuppusamy had insisted upon a settlement deed being executed to secure the loan. The first defendant has never delivered possession of the property to the said Meenatchi Ammal and she continued to be in possession of the property and has been cultivating it. It is also the contention of the first defendant that the original settlement deed remained in the hands of the deceased first defendant. The first defendant thereafter discharged the loan and revoked the settlement deed under a Deed of Revocation dated 22.07.2005. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the settlement executed by the deceased first defendant in favour of the respondent's mother was never intended to be acted upon and Meenatchi Ammal had not accepted the same.

5. It was also the defense of the first defendant that, apart from him, he has two sons and a daughter, who are entitled to the share in the suit property. Therefore, the execution of the settlement deed is void abinitio. It is the contention of the deceased first defendant that he and his children had sold the suit property to the first appellant herein, who was arrayed as the second defendant in the suit, under a registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.2000 and she has taken possession of the same and has also mutated the revenue records. The first appellant would submit that the suit appears to be a collusive one made with the intent of extracting money from