2.The plaintiff and the defendants are closely related to each other. The plaintiff's father Kandasamy was the brother of one Muthu, whose widow, sons and daughters are the defendants 1 to 6. The brothers Kandasamy and Muthu owned ancestral properties and the same were partitioned between them and the suit property was admittedly assigned in the name of Kandasamy by the Government during 1966 under Ex.B2 assignment deed. Thereafter, Kandasamy executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of his brother Muthu in 1981. According to the plaintiff, the cost of the suit property was paid, out of the income derived from the joint family property belonging to Kandasamy and his son Sadasivam, who is the plaintiff herein and the property was, after assignment in favour of plaintiff's father, improved jointly by assignee and his son/plaintiff herein and the same has been jointly enjoyed by the assignee and his son by obtaining patta and by paying kist. It is the further case of the plaintiff in his plaint and in the reply statement that Ex.B1 settlement deed mentioned in the written statement was not executed by his father Kandasamy and the same was forged one and Kandasamy had no right to execute settlement in respect of joint family properties and the same was not acted upon and even after settlement deed, the property has been in possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff. According to the contesting defendants 1 to 3, the suit property was during 1981 settled by the assignee in favour of his brother Muthu and the settlement deed was acted upon and after settlement, the settlee and his wife and children, who are the defendants, have been in possession and enjoyment of the property by obtaining updating patta and by paying kist etc.
