Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 20.04.2022 made in AS No.8 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 20.12.2017 made in OS No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam by allowing this Second Appeal.

For Appellant(s): Mr. T.Dhanasekaran

JUDGMENT

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.80 of 2011 seeking declaration that the settlement deed dated 10.12.2009 executed by his father Ramachandrapillai in favour of his brother, the respondent/defendant was null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his alleged possession over the suit property. He also sought for bare injunction, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property to third parties. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. The findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has come before this court by filing the present second appeal.

3. The appellant/plaintiff and his brother/defendant were sons of Ramachandra Pillai. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Muthukrishna Pillai and his son Pachaiyappa Pillai and the said Muthukrishna Pillai is grand father of Ramachandra Pillai. The said Pachaiyappa Pillai died intestate and there was a family arrangement on 06.08.1958, where under, the family properties were divided into four schedules. Accordingly, A schedule was allotted to the share of Muthukrishna Pillai, B schedule was allotted to the share of Ramachandra Pillai, C schedule was allotted to the share of plaintiff and D schedule was allotted to the share of defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff that there was a clause in the family arrangement that in case any male child born to Ramachandra Pillai in future, he shall be given share in the A schedule property allotted to Muthukrishna Pillai and after life time of Muthukrishna Pillai, the properties allotted to him shall go to Ramakrishnan pillai. Further, it was stated by the plaintiff that, after attaining majority, the plaintiff and the defendant got their respective properties allotted to them, as per the family arrangement and they have been enjoying the same. The another son born to Ramachandra Pillai, namely Sekar alias Muthukrishnan died as a bachelor and therefore, the share of the said Muthu Krishnan in the A schedule property to the family arrangement shall go to his mother Viruthambal, wife of Ramachandra Pillai. After death of Muthu Krishnan @ Sekar, the father Ramachandra Pillai and the mother Viruthambal enjoyed the properties absolutely, described as A and B schedule to the family arrangement made in the year 1958. Since they could not maintain the properties due to their old age, the properties described in A and B schedule were partitioned orally between the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. It is further stated by the plaintiff that for the last 5 years immediately preceding filing of the suit, Ramachandra Pillai was not in stable mental condition and hence, the plaintiff and defendant jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2009 seeking bare injunction, restraining their father Ramachandra pillai from alienating his properties to third parties. When the said suit was pending, the said Ramachandra pillai and his wife Viruthambal passed away. The defendant got a settlement deed from Ramachandra Pillai in his favour with regard to the suit property, taking advantage of his unstable mind. Therefore, the said settlement deed was not a valid one. The plaintiff further pleaded that the item No.3 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Angammal, mother of Ramachandra Pillai on 04.07.1977, from the income of the C schedule property, allotted to the share