JUDGMENT

Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

2.The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam seeking permanent injunction against his father, namely K.Kanagaraj/defendant. The suit was dismissed on 05.07.2002. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 06.01.2004. Challenging the concurrent degree and judgment of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed.

3.The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The plaintiff is the son of the defendant. The defendant executed settlement deed dated 22.06.2001 in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit scheduled property. The plaintiff also applied for the change of property tax before the town panchayat with regard to the suit scheduled property. On 04.10.2001, the defendant tried to vacate the plaintiff from the suit scheduled property through tenants, at the instant of someone, who are against the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction. 4.The brief case of the defendant is as follows:-

The defendant has four sons and two daughters. The plaintiff is the youngest son. He executed the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 22.06.2001. But the settlement deed was executed under compulsion and by physically harassing the defendant. As it was under threat, he cancelled the same, on 19.09.2001. The settlement deed was not acted upon and the property tax also stands in the name of the defendant. The possession was not handed over to the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

i)Whether the defendant handed over the possession over the property to the plaintiff by executing settlement deed?

ii)Whether gift settlement deed is valid in law?

iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief or permanent injunction?

Additional Issues:-

iv)Whether the contention that plaintiff obtained settlement deed by harassing defendant has been proved?

v)Whether the defendant entitled to cancel the settlement deed executed by him?

5.Finding of Trial Court:-

The plaintiff has been residing in the suit property only in the capacity of the son and he did not prove the possession was handed over to him pursuant to Ex.A1. The plaintiff failed to prove the execution Ex.A1, voluntarily out of love and affection by examining witnesses. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, on the following grounds:-

The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Ex.A1 gift deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff is absolute one and cannot be revoked under any circumstances. The trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that the Ex.A1 possession of the property has not handed over the plaintiff. The defendant has no right to cancel the gift deed and defendant has not imposed any condition in the gift deed. The trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant executed cancel deed after three months from the date of its execution also failed to consider legal principles. The trial Court ought not to have given not importance to the oral and evidence on P.W.2 & 3 and who are interested witnesses. The first Appellate Court had been re appreciate of the entire facts and confirmed the decree and judgment of the C