ARUKKANI DIED Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the appellants. THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the house property. Pending second appeal, the first appellant died and her legal representatives were brought on record as ap"pellants 3 and 4. THE plaintiff is the brother of defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the first de"fendant is blind and the second defendant is a widow.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that his father Palanipandithar was owner of the suit property and by a registered settlement deed dated 31.8.1970, which is marked as Exhibit A 1, he settled the property in favour of he plaintiff and ever since the date of the settle"ment, he has been in possession and enjoy"ment of the suit property by paying house tax, etc. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the settlement deed executed by his father under Exhibit A-1 is irrevocable since he had no such right. It is also his ease that ten years after the settlement deed was executed, the defendants have fraudulently taken away the original set"tlement deed from the plaintiffs possession and had obtained a cancellation deed dated 7.6.1980 cancelling the said settlement deed, which stands marked on the side of the defen"dants as Exhibit B-1, and also obtained a settle"ment deed in their favour on 7.7.1980, which stands marked as Exhibit B-2. According to the plaintiff, though the defendants had ac"cepted the settlement made in his favour by his father on 31.8.1970, yet, they are attempting to interfere with his possession and therefore, he tiled the said suit.

(3.) WHILE admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court: