Can a plaintiff seek partition of property covered by a registered settlement deed without having it cancelled or set aside?

Paragraph 21The specific argument of the defendant's side is that until the settlement deed is cancelled or set aside, the plaintiffs cannot seek partition as the deed is the main obstacle to the plaintiffs. On perusal of records, the defendants in their written statement clearly pleaded that his parents executed a registered settlement deed dated 21.05.1996 in his favour. Thereafter, the defendant mutated the revenue records and has been in possession and enjoyment for the past about 25 years from 1996. The defendant marked patta and kist receipt as his exhibits. Hence, the plaintiffs, being sisters of defendant, might have known about the execution of the settlement deed. Even after filing written statement with contents about the execution of registered settlement deed, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to cancel or set aside the same by way of filing a case before appropriate forum, much less to add a prayer for cancellation of settlement deed in the suit on hand. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek for partition without setting aside or cancelling the settlement deed as rightly put forth by the defendant by relying on ruling (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 767 in MD.Noorul Hoda /v/ Bibi Raifunnisha and Others case (stated supra) in which it is held in paragraph No.6 as follows:

Paragraph 22As discussed above, the settlement deed dated 21.05.1996 under Ex.B.1 is proved by the respondent/defendant and the trial Court has the right to hold that it is valid and proved. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek for partition in respect of the suit property covered in Ex.B.1 settlement deed. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial Court do not warrant interference and the same has to be confirmed. The points are answered accordingly. Thus, this appeal fails.