Judgment.- The only question involved in this second appeal is about the validity of the original of Exhibit B-2 dated 21st September, 1958, executed by one Alla Pichai. Several contentions would appear to have been advanced as to the nature of the transaction brought about by Exhibit B-2, namely, as to whether it was a gift or a will or a settlement or a family arrangement. Before the terms of this document are considered and a decision reached as to its character, it is necessary to refer to the relationship of the parties to the litigation. The plaintiff in the suit is the sister of the deceased Alla Pichai. Defendants 1 and 2 are the widows of Alla Pichai. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of a pre-deceased sister of Alla Pichai. Defendants 5 and 6 are merely tenants of the property. Since Alla Pichai had no children, after he had died intestate, the plaintiff as the sister of the deceased Alla Pichai, would have been an heir and entitled to a share in his estate. It is in that context only that the pl?in-tiff instituted the suit for partition. She was met with the defence that Alla Pichai had disposed of the property under the original of Exhibit B-2 and that therefore there wag no property to be inherited by her. One of the points that would appear to have been considered was as to whether the original of Exhibit B-2 was a spurious document and never intended to be acted upon or not. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that it was a real transaction and not a spurious one and in view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below regarding Exhibit B-2, that question is no longer open in the present second appeal.

2. Consequently the only question that arises for consideration is, what exactly is the nature of the transaction covered by the original of Exhibit B-2 and whether it is valid or not.

The appellants contended that if the transaction was a gift, there was no valid gift because there was no delivery of possession of the property, that if it was a will, it could take effect only to the extent of one-third of the estate of the deceased and not the whole of the property and that therefore the transaction would not be effective at all either as a gift or as a will. At the same time the respondents namely, the defendants had also put forward the case that the transaction was a family arrangement. Though the learned District Munsif, who tried the suit, accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition, on appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 4, the learned Additional District Judge of Tirunelveli reversed that conclusion and dismissed the suit. In paragraph 16 of his judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has pointed out:

“In view of the above discussion, I hold that the original of Exhibit B-2 was a family arrangement entered into by Alla Pichai and the appellants herein (defendants 1 to 4) and that the same was supported by consideration and is valid in law”.

In view of this conclusion, as I have pointed out already, the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence the present second appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit

3. As I have pointed out already, the only question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is, as to what exactly is the nature of the transaction brought about by the original of Exhibit B-2 and what is its legal effect. The document is styled as a settlement and is stamped as a settlement and has been registered as a settlement. The executant of the document had stated that he had married defendants 1 and 2, that he had no children through either of them, that he had brought up the children of his younger sister, defendants 3 and 4 as his own child’ en along with his two wives defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and that after having brought them up, he had also at his own expense performed the marriage of the third defendant. He also stated that he and his wives and these two children were living as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document