Settlement deed executed by settlor relinquishing all her rights in the property.

1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 95 of 1983 dated 31.8.84, in confirming that of the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No. 203 of 1981, dated 28.4.1982.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the above second appeal.

3. The suit was filed for decree for partition of the properties described in the Schedules A and B metes and bounds and to put the plaintiffs in possession of their 2/6th share, for directing the first defendant to deliver possession of 'C’ schedule property and for mesne profits to be determined under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. The plaintiffs claim that the properties described in schedule A belonged to one Sowrimuthu who died in 1942 leaving behind him his only son, Anthonysamy and that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Anthonysamy Pillai. It is further pleaded that the heirs of Anthonysamy Pillai are entitled to 1/6th share in the 'A' schedule property and the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/6th share. The properties described in 'B' schedule belonged to plaintiff’s mother Adaikala Mary, wife of Anthonysamy Pillai, that she died on 20.5.1980 leaving 21 1/4 soveriegns of gold jewels described in 'B' schedule and that the said jewels belong equally to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. It is further contended that the 'C’ schedule property also belonged exclusively to the plaintiff’s mother. She had duly executed a registered settlement deed on 11.1.1971 to the effect that the property should be taken in equal shares with absolute rights by the plaintiffs. The settlement deed was duly executed by plaintiff’s mother Adaikala Mary in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was also duly attested and registered. In the said settlement deed, she has reserved herself the right of residence in the house till her life time and also reserved to herself the enjoyment of the income from the house property till her life time. After the death of the mother, plaintiffs had become absolutely entitled to the properties described in the schedule. It is further contended that the first defendant was not in possession of the properties. He refused to give a share legitimately due to the plaintiffs and therefore a registered notice was sent through the plaintiff’s advocate on 1.10.80 call ing upon him to effect the division of properties and to put the plaintiffs in possession of their 2/6th share. A reply was received from the first defendant on 14.10.80 alleging that the first defendant was not in possession of A and B schedule property, that the jewels were in possession of the plaintiffs and with regard to C schedule, the settlement was untenable. Hence the suit.

4. The first defendant filed written statement disputing the claims in the plant. According to him there was a registered Will dated 31.5.47 duly executed and attested by the father of the parties, namely, Anthonysamy Pillai and in the said Will it has been stated that on account of two daughters having been married and having been provided with sufficient seervarisai, they were not entitled to any share in the family properties and therefore the defendants 2 to 4 cannot get any right, title or interest in the properties of the deceased Anthonysamy Pillai and the fact of the execution of the Will has been suppressed in the plaint. As regards the jewels, the 1st defendant pleaded that he did not personally know about the possession of 21 1/4 soveriegns of gold jewels described in the 'B' schedule. Regarding the alleged Settlement Deed dated 11.1.71, it was cancelled subsequently by a cancellation deed dated 30.4.75 and after the cancellation, the mother of the parties in a sound and disposing state of min d had executed a registered Will dated 14..5.75 and that even as per the Will, in'C ’schedule daughters were not given any share much less any right, title or interest in the properties. The daughters were to be given Rs. 1,000 as per