The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between a settlement deed and a Will, considering the ambulatory quality of Wills, reservation of life-interest, restraint on alienation, and the interpretation of the document.

P. Janaki Amma, J.

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 127 of 1965 on the file of the Munsiff, Muvattupuzha. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of the 3rd defendant, Ulahannan Ulahannan, and the 4th defendant, Acha. Ext. P-1, described as a settlement deed was executed by defendants 3 and 4 in respect of their properties. The document recited that moveables belonging to the executants had been divided among their children and that the subject-matter of the desposition was the moveable properties and the liabilities. The A schedule items were allotted under the document to the 1st defendant, B schedule items to the plaintiff and the G schedule items to the 2nd defendant. On the date of the document certain of the properties along with some properties of the plaintiff were outstanding under a chitty hypothecation bond represented by document No. 871/58 and an amount of Rs. 3,000 remained to be paid. The plaintiff was directed to discharge the liability. An amount of Rs.2,000 was directed to be paid by the 2nd defendant to Chinnamma, the daughter of the executants within a period of 2 years from the date of the document. In case the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant did not pay the amounts directed to be paid by them respectively, the 3rd defendant in his life-time and the 4th defendant thereafter, if she was living, would be entitled to discharge the debt by sale of the items in the B and G Schedules. The executants reserve the right to reside in the property in the C Schedule and to take the usufructs of the items in the different schedules during their life-time either directly or by granting leases. The document further recited that in case the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 omitted to discharge debts or failed to maintain defendants 3 and 4 the latter had the right to cancel the document. The executants had the right to execute any document in respect of the items by themselves; but in case the plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2 were to sell any of the items, they could do so only with the concurrence of defendants 3 and 4.

2. According to the plaintiff, after the execution of the document he had been subscribing to the chitties and was in possession of the properties allotted to him. However defendants 3 and 4 under the influence of defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext. P-6, an assignment deed in favour of the 1st defendant in relation to items 1 and 2 in the plaint and also Ext. P-7 a lease deed in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of item No.3. The plaintiff would contend that the 3rd defendant had no right to execute such documents. The suit was accordingly filed for a declaration that Ext. P-6 the assignment deed and Ext. P-7 the lease deed were not valid and binding on the plaintiff. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed recovery of amounts spent by him in discharging the debts as per the directions in Ext. P-1 and also for value of improvements.

3. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 contested. The 2nd defendant was removed from the array of parties. The contentions of the defendants were as follows: The plaint schedule item No.2 was assigned by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in consideration of the sthree-dhanam amount obtained by him. That property belongs to the 4th defendant absolutely. Item No.1 was outstanding on usufructuary mortgage. That mortgage right was obtained by the 5th defendant and the item is therefore in possession of the 5th defendant. The equity of redemption over item No.1 and the plaint schedule item No.2 were sold by the 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant, since the plaintiff did not discharge the chitty and other liabilities. The 5th defendant is in possession of the items both under the usufructuary mortgage and under the lease. The defendants further contended that possession of the properties covered by Ext. P-1 was all along with defendants 3 and 4 and never passed to the allotees. According to them, the document Ext. P-1 is only a Will and the tit