1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-Siddaiah challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Mandya in R.A. No. 89/2003 dated 23.6.2005.

2. Suit was filed by plaintiff-Siddaiah for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as it was settled in his favour by one Chowdamma, D/o Karisidda of Bevinahalli village, executed on 3.8.1951 before the sub-Registrar, Mandya and defendants have no semblance of right or interest over the suit property. On the death of Chowdamma on 9.3.1990, by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated 3.8.1951, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since after the death of Chowdamma the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, he filed a suit. The matter was contested by the defendants contending that, Sy. No.148/3 totally measures 2 acres and 1 gunta including 9 guntas of kharab land. Chowdamma D/0 Karisidda was the owner in possession of the said land. The said land has been bifurcated by a channel and an extent of 24 guntas is situated on the northern side of the channel and remaining 48 guntas is situated on the southern side of the channel. Chowdamma had settled only 38 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff out of 48 guntas situated on the southern side and remaining extent of 10 guntas and the land measuring 24 guntas were not at all settled in favour of the plaintiff and it was settled in favour of the 1st defendant who was a minor then, represented by his father Javaraiah as a guardian on 26.2.1975 and thereafter, the 1st defendant was enjoying 34 guntas of land as a full owner and thereafter, it was sold in favour of the 2nd defendant on 15.5.1989. It is further alleged that, based on the lawful ownership and the revenue entries there is a change of khata in the name of the 1st defendant. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has raised as many as 5 issues and 3 additional issues. While answering the relevant issues in favour of the plaintiff, the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and granted permanent injunction to the plaintiff as against the defendants or his agents. Against the said order, defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Prl. District Court, Mandya, wherein the learned District Judge while allowing the appeal in R.A. No. 89/2003, has reversed the finding of the 1 Additional Munsiff, Mandya in O.S. No., 719/1990. Hence, this second appeal by the legal representative of deceased plaintiff.

3. At the time of admission of 18.1.2007, the following substantial question of law has been framed:

Whether the interpretation placed by the lower appellate Court on Ex.P1, the settlement deed, to the effect in so far as second item of the property is concerned, it constitutes a Will, is valid?

4. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.

5. According to the learned counsel to the appellants, Ex.P1 is the settlement deed which confirms the right to the extent of 38 guntas in favour of the plaintiff and according to which, the remaining 10 guntas is to be settled in favour of the plaintiff on the death of settler namely Chowdamma. Making use of the alleged subsequent transaction, the defendant are denying the right and title over 10 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, once the property is settled, there cannot be any susequent settlement in favour of others and the settlement if any, made in favour of defendant No. 1, is not binding on the plaintiff, moreover when the plaintiff is in possession of 10 guntas. The trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate Court, while interpreting Ex.P1, has held that it is a Will, which is erroneous. Accordingly, he has