Settlement deed not a will cannot be revoked.

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.

An oft-repeated question on the construction of a document, whether it is a will or settlement arises in this Letters Patent appeal.

2. One Mallinatha Nainar, the first defendant in the suit, executed a document dated 5.6.1972 which was registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Gingee. He thereafter revoked the said document by another registered deed dated 20.8.1980. The plaintiffs, who are the grandsons of Mallinatha Nainar, filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties on the ground that the deed executed on 5.6.1972 was a deed of settlement and Mallinatha Nainar has no right of revocation and he has no right to alienate the properties and the alienation made by him in favour of his another son, the second defendant in the suit and the subsequent sale in favour of outsiders by the second defendant are not valid in the eye of law, and hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properties as per the settlement deed dated 5.6.1972 and for other consequential reliefs.

3. Mallinatha Nainar, who executed the document and who figured as first defendant in the suit, in his written statement, has stated that there was an earlier partition in the family and in the said partition, he was allotted certain properties and he was forced to execute the document and by the deed, no right was conferred to the plaintiffs or the sons of the second defendant. According to him, no present right was conferred in the document dated 5.6.1972 as alleged by the plaintiffs and it was not his intention also to give any present right under the document dated 5.6.1972. His case was that the document was only a will and that document was also not acted upon. It is also stated that since the document was a will, that need not be revoked, but however, with a view to put an end to the dispute, he executed the deed of revocation. His main case is that no right was conferred on the plaintiffs by the document and subsequently, the properties were sold for valuable consideration to the second and third defendants. Other defendants also supported the case of the first defendant.

4. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence, held that the document dated 5.6.1972 is a will and the document was also executed under undue influence exercised by the sons of the first defendant and the first defendant had the right to revoke the document. The trial Court also upheld the alienation by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and also the subsequent alienations by the first and second defendants in favour of third defendant. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Against the judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 24.11.1999, held that the document is only a settlement deed and not a will. Learned Single Judge held that the deed of revocation and subsequent alienations in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are not valid and cannot confer any right on the executor or the alignees. Hence, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. It is against the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The entire question depends upon the construction of the document, which is in Tamil and to appreciate the controversy, we quote from the said document the relevant portion which reads as under:-

The document was written in Tamil and the official English version of the abovesaid portion reads thus:-

"Whereas, the said persons, (1) and (2) are the settlor's sons and the said minors are his grandsons, through his sons and out of love and affection towards them, and as it is his duty to do some favour to them, he hath this day settled the properties mentioned in the 'A' & 'B' Schedules hereunder by way of gift, which is worth about Rs.21,500/- (Rupees twenty one thousand and five hundred only) in favour of the settl