##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Madhu W/o Manian ..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Madhammal D/o Kalluvellaiyan

2. Kuppachi W/o Manickam ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2013 made in A.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2010 made in O.S.No.539 of 2005 on the file to the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

For Appellant(s): Mr.Ruban Chakravarthy for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Kalyanaraman for R1 R2-given Up JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in A.S. No.

85 of 2012. The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 539 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem for the relief of cancellation of settlement deed dated 19.04.2005 and restraining the defendants from creating encumbrance over the property and also restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and for declaration and for cost. The said suit was decreed on 30.01.2010. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 85 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem and the said appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants, as referred before the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that originally suit property belonged to the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and he had two wives, through his first wife, namely Kuppuchi, he had two daughters, plaintiff and another daughter. The 1^st defendant also kept another woman, namely Muthu, wife of Perumal and through her, the 2^nd defendant was born. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st defendant died and the 3rd defendant is the legal heir, has been added as a party to the suit. While so, the 1^st defendant executed registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 19-04-2005 and on the same day possession was also granted to her and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and paying tax in the name of her father. While so recently, the 2^nd defendant prevailing over the first defendant's father, to cancel the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and executed document in favor of the 2^nd defendant. As per settlement deed, no condition to revoke the settlement, and the settlement deed was purely on the basis of love and affection in favor of the plaintiff, who lost her mother. The 1^st defendant had no right over the properties after the execution of settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff. While so, after the suit, the 1^st defendant cancelled the settlement deed executed in favor of the plaintiff and registered a document. Already the plaintiff also gave an objection petition to the sub-registrar on hearing about the cancellation of document and the said petition was returned by advising the plaintiff to seek remedy before the Court. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. The case of the 1^st defendant before the trial court is that the defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The settlement deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 19-4-2005, is denied. The first defendant never intended to execute any settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant had two wives, through his first wife Kuppuchi, he has got two