in respect of the suit properties stands in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is paying kist for the same and the plaintiff purchased 2.34 acres in S.No.79/7, from the first defendant by way of a sale deed dated 10.12.69 and put in possession and enjoyment of the same by his vendor, namely, the first defendant and the plaintiff purchased 1.20 acres in S.No.79/7 from Muthusamy, the first defendant's son with a Well therein and another item by way of a sale deed dated 21.4.68 and put in possession of the same and the plaintiff was allotted 0.65 cents in S.No79/7, by way of registered partition deed dated 27.09.79 between himself and his brother and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 4.19 acres in S.No.79/7. The remaining 39 cents in S.No.79/7 belongs to the first defendant, Rajammal and Natesan. Out of the same, the first defendant is entitled to 0.22 cents and Rajammal is entitled to 0.11 cents. The plaintiff purchased 1.20 acres in S.No.109/1, out of a total extent of 6.60 acres, by way of a registered sale deed dated 21.04.68 from Muthusamy, first defendant's son and in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff purchased 1.71 acres in S.No.85/10 from Marakkal, wife of Palani gounder, by way of sale deed dated 13.04.70 and in possession and enjoyment of the same. The first defendant has executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son, the second defendant, on 26.10.79. However, unscrupulously included 0.25 cents of lands in S.No.85/1C and 0.27 cents in S.No. 109/1 with a whole well in the above said settlement deed and 0.69 cents in S.No.79/7 which all belong to the plaintiff. Hence, the settlement deed above settled in favour of the first defendant, including the properties of the plaintiff is not valid and binding upon the plaintiff. The settlement deed is void ab initio and further, the defendants have created a sale deed dated 05.09.83 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 by including the share of the plaintiff and therefore, the above said sale deed dated 05.09.83 is also not valid and binding upon the plaintiff and based upon the above said two invalid documents the defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
