The main legal point established is that the interpretation of the settlement deed led to the finding that the plaintiff had absolute ownership of the property and was entitled to recover possession based on her title.

The parties in both these appeals are the same. S.A.No. 619 of 1993 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.118 1984 on the file of the Sub Court. North Paravur which is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 466 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court. North Paravur. S.A.No. 632 of 1993 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.43 of 1998 on the Sub Court. North Paravur which is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 426 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant can be referred as the plaintiff and the respondents can be referred as the defendants. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 465 of 1985 for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property and 40 cents lying adjacent to it are the proprieties mentioned in the settlement deed executed by the parents of plaintiff and defendants in the year 1959. AT the time of execution of the settlement deed. The plaintiff has not been married. The property having an extent of 60 cents was set apart to the share of plaintiff. It is stated in the settlement deed that the marriage of the plaintiff should be conducted by her father during his life time and in case he could not conduct the marriage, the marriage should be conducted by the mother. It is further stated that in the settlement deed that after the death of the parents, the property would vest with the plaintiff. In connection with the marriage of the plaintiff’s her father sold 40 cents out of 60 cents. The plaintiff’s father died on 16.7.1968 and mother died on 18.7.1984. After then death the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant are now in the possession of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff had requested for surrender of possession they filed O.S. No.426 of 1985 for declaration and injunction.

3. The contention of the defendant is that he are entitled to get the sale deed executed in respect of the plaint schedule property. Since the plaint schedule property did not belong to the plaintiff she is not entitled to recover possession on the strength of title with manse profits. The plaintiff has no right over the property. He admits the crecution of settlement deed by the parents in the year 1959. As per the settlement deed, the mother is entitled to take income from the property allotted to the share of Elsy, Seleena, Karmaly and George. The persons mentioned above are bound to execute sale deed in respect of the properties allotted to them in case any of the sons of deceased Ousephunni offers to pay of the rate of Rs.20/- per cent. At the time of execution of the settlement deed, the marriage of the plaintiff and Josepheena had not been conducted. So, the property mentioned in F Schedule having an extent of 60 cents was allotted to the share of plaintiff. As per the settlement deed, the property allotted to the plaintiff would vest with the plaintiff in case her parents could not conduct her marriage during their life time. But the plaintiff’s marriage was conducted by her father Ousephunni during his life time. In order to meet the marriage expenses, Ousephunni had sold 40 cents out of 50 cents in 1964. The balance 20 cents was set apart to the share of plaintiff subject to the provisions under which the properties had been set apart to the other married daughters. So, the provisions contained in the settlement deed in respect of the properties allotted to the married daughters are also applicable to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is bound to execute the sale deed in favour of any of the sons of deceased Ousephunni. In spite of repeated requests made to the plaintiff, she has not executed the sale deed. So, the defendant as plaintiff filed O.S. 426 of 1985. As per the provisions contained in the settlement deed, the defendants are in possession of the plaint schedule property