Right created in a settlement deed neither can be affected nor withdrawan.

Mishra, J.

Three questions, (1) Whether Ex.A-1 had the character of a testament alone a deed of settlement of rights and interests in the property of the executrix for life her death upon the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 5 and the heirs and representative of the deceased daughter of the executrix (defendants 6 to 9)" in O.S.No.156 of 1978 of the court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, (2) whether the deed of cancellation (Ex.A-2) is valid and legal in the sense that it cancelled the rights and interests plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 9 in the suit and (3) whether the suit filed beyond period of three years for a declaration that Ex.A-2 is null and void is maintainable, our consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Before we enter into the examination on the above questions, we may state briefly facts. It is the admitted case of the parties that the site or the land in dispute was name of the first defendant acquired under two documents, one dated 19.8.1931 and the other dated 3.6.1932 (Ex.B-2). According to the plaintiffs, the land was acquired the first defendant out of her own funds and the buildings thereon were also put up On 30.11.1970 as per Ex.A-1, a document purported to be a settlement deed was by her in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 5 in respect of the suit property. 17.3.1971, she (first defendant) executed a deed as per Ex.A-2 cancelling Ex.A 7.4.1971, the first defendant executed a fresh settlement deed in favour of the second defendant husband) in respect of the plaintiffs and thus they filed the instant suit for a declaration the alleged cancellation deed dated 17.3.1971 is null and void. Although the suit as framed sought declaration only, the plaintiffs preferred an amendment to the plaint stage of the appeal in the court below seeking for the declaration as above that they entitled to vested remainder in the plaint schedule property along with the defendants 5. as per the settlement deed (Ex.A-1).

3. A common plea has been raised on behalf of the defendants, which has been summarized in the impugned judgment as follows: "The suit site was purchased by the second defendant with his funds benami in the the 1st defendant; the construction over the suit site were put up by the second defendant; the first defendant had no right, title and interest to execute the Settlement Deed Ex.A-1 was vitiated by fraud and undue influence and is liable to be set aside; Ex.A true was in the nature of a will and hence it stood revoked by the subsequent document; suit is barred by limitation, and in any event the second defendant has perfected title to suit property by adverse possession."

4. The trial court answered the main disputes between the parties as follows: "The suit site was purchased by the second defendant with his funds benami in the name the first defendant. The construction in the suit site were put up by the second defendant. The first defendant had no title to convey or right to execute the settlement deed 30.11.1970. The settlement deed dated 30.11.1970 was vitiated by fraud and undue influence and is liable to be set aside." On the question that Ex. A-2 was brought about by threats and fraud and undue influence and hence null and void and Ex.A-1 was in the nature of a will and hence the subsequent document executed by the first defendant cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Ex.A-2 was brought about by threats force, fraud and undue influence and that Ex.A-1 was in the nature of a will and hence subsequent document executed by the first defendant cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs. The trial court also held that the second defendant had perfected title to the suit property adverse possession long prior to the year 1970. It also said that the suit filed on behalf the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.

5. The court below formulated the following four questions and answered them as follows:

"1. Whethe