A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 352 of 2001 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad have come up with this appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the District Court, Palakkad in A.S. No. 158 of 2004.

2. The respondents approached the trial court for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from entering upon the plaint schedule property as well as from interfering with the possession of the respondents among other reliefs.

3. In the plaint it is alleged that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the parties herein as per a partition deed of 1989 of SRO, Palakkad. Their father expired on 12.3.1998. During his life time he had executed a Will by which the property devolved upon the mother of the parties. On 23.8.2000, the mother of the parties executed Ext.B1 deed in favour of the appellants in respect of the plaint schedule property. The respondent/ plaintiff alleged that though Ext.B1 is described as settlement deed, it was a Will and therefore, a fresh Will, Ext.A3 had been executed by the mother on 21.11.2000 cancelling Ext.B1 and later by Ext.A4 dated 2.11.2000 the properties were assigned to him. Therefore, according to the respondent/plaintiff, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The appellants/defendants contended that Ext.B1 is the settlement deed executed by the mother in their favour and the same was accepted by them. Therefore, it was their specific case that in furtherance of Ext.B1, they came to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property therein. According to them, the reservation made in Ext.B1 was with respect to the life interest of the mother only and the entire property was conveyed and delivered to the appellants. Therefore, according to the appellants, Exts.A3 and A4 and other documents are not binding on them and they have no effect so long as Ext.B1 is there. They further contended that the mother had no right even to cancel Ext.B1 as it had come into force on the date of execution. Therefore, the appellants prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court after raising proper issues for trial, permitted both sides to adduce their evidence and at the trial, Pws.1 and 2 and Dws.1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A6, B1 and C1 were marked. The trial court after considering the evidence dismissed the suit. The matter was taken in appeal before the lower appellate court which granted a decree reversing the judgment of the trial court holding that Ext.B1 was only a Will executed by the testator. It is with this background, this appeal has been preferred.

6. Arguments have been heard.

7. The entire issue revolves around the interpretation of Ext.B1 executed by the mother of the parties. While the appellants claim absolute title on the basis of Ext.B1 alleging that it was an out and out gift which came into force on the date of execution, the respondents would contend that it was only a Will which could be cancelled and in fact was cancelled by the mother of the parties.

8. It is trite that the settlement deed is substantially a gift deed, as the difference between the two is very thin and narrow. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that Ext.B1 is a registered deed engrossed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 5,000/- in terms of the requirement of a gift deed. It was pointed out that the deed was handed over to the appellants and delivery was effected in terms of the deed and the appellants were residing in the plaint schedule property. It was pointed out that as per the terms of Ext.B1, the mother had reserved only a life interest.

9. As per Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act Will means a legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. However, in a settlement deed, the properties are transferred voluntarily, gratuitously and absolutely conferring immediate rights over th