The Court established that the cancellation of a settlement deed without a power of revocation is invalid, and a suit filed beyond the limitation period is barred by law.

The appellants are the defendants. The respondent filed a suit for division of all the four items of the suit properties into two equal half shares and put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share.

2. Though the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff is this:

"Periammal, the plaintiff is the elder sister of Palanichamy, the first defendant. Her parents - Appachi Gounder and Chinnammal have got four children - Periammal, the plaintiff, Muthayee Ammal, Ammani Ammal are the daughters and the first defendant Palanisamy Gounder is the only son. While her father was alive, he executed two settlement deeds in respect of suit items dated 29.6.1978 and 5.7.1978 in favour of the plaintiff. Prior to this, her father sent two notices Exs.A1 and A3 dated 22.6.1978 and 24.6.1978 to the first defendant and got himself severed from the family. Item No.1 of the suit properties was purchased by Appachi Gounder, the father on 15.5.1944 and a house which is item No.2 was constructed by him in the year 1959. Item Nos.3 and 4 are the joint family properties. After the severance in status, Appachi Gounder executed the above mentioned settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiff under Exs.A5 and A6 and delivered possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff would be entitled to half share in the properties, she filed the suit for partition."

4. The case of the first defendant is as follows:

"Item No.1 was purchased on 15.5.1944 by Appachi Gounder, the father and a house was constructed in item No.2 in the year 1959. Appachi Gounder executed a settlement deed Ex.A11 dated 21.8.1959 gifting his self-acquired properties, namely items 1 and 2 to his wife Chinnammal and after her life, to the second defendant, the son of the first defendant. The said document was given effect to and acted upon. From then onwards, the second defendant and Chinnammal had been in possession. Since Chinnammal was aged, the cultivation work was done on her behalf by the defendants 1 and 2. However, behind their back, Appachi Gounder cancelled the said settlement deed executed in favour of Chinnammal, the wife and second defendant and thereafter executed two settlement deeds Exs.A5 and A6 in favour of the plaintiff. Those documents are not valid, since Appachi Gounder had no power to revoke the gift deed Ex.A11 dated 21.8.1959. Further, Exs.A5 and A6 were not given effect to, since the possession of the suit properties have been with the defendants. This was intimated through Ex.B2 dated 20.6.1979 by way of reply to the plaintiff for her notice Ex.B1 dated 13.6.1979. Further, the suit has been filed beyond the period of 12 years."

5. During trial, necessary issues were framed. The Trial Court while dismissing the suit would hold that Ex.A11 has been given effect to and as such, Appachi Gounder, the father had no right to cancel the said deed under Ex.A12 in view of the fact that power of revocation has not been given and further, the suit was filed after 12 years after receipt of reply notice Ex.B2 sent by the defendants.

6. The lower Appellate Court reversed the said finding holding that Ex.A11 has not been given effect to and that through notices Exs.A1 and A3, there was disruption of family status and as such, the plaintiff would be entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

7. Challenging the above reversing judgment, this second appeal has been filed.

8. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to suit properties on the basis of Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 settlement deeds, when admittedly the properties originally belonged to the joint family consisting of the defendants and their ancestor, and further, the plaintiff having not come to the court within 12 years from the d