3.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent filed a counter-affidavit and on the submissions made by Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 would reveal that during the lifetime of the third respondent's father, all the sisters got married and they were given sreedhana articles, gold, silver articles and also payment of several lakhs in respect of their shares. During his lifetime, the third respondent's father executed a will in favour of the third respondent in respect of all his properties. That apart, the properties stand in the name of his mother were initially settled in favour of the elder sister Nagarathinam and subsequently, she relinquished her share and executed a release deed in favour of her mother. Thereafter, his mother had executed a settlement deed dated 06.10.2011 in respect of the property which was purchased by her in favour of the third respondent. Thereby, the third respondent derived title over the entire properties and had settled some portion of the properties in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 and subsequently partitioned the same between them. Finally, the properties were sold out in favour of the respondents 7 to 10. Further, a complaint was lodged by the petitioners to cancel the documents which were executed by the respondents 3 to 6 under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the said provision was declared as unconstitutional
