The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the settlement deed and its classification as a will, influencing the court's decision in allowing the appeal.

M. DURAISWAMY, J.

The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.260 of 1991 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.730 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore.

2. The defendants 1, 3 to 7 are the appellants in the above second appeal. The appellants 2 to 6 and the second respondent were recorded as legal representatives of the deceased-first appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent and the other respondents are the defendants in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 730 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore for declaration, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for past damages.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff in the suit is as follows:

.(i) According to the plaintiff, her father Chinnasamy @ Chinnayyan married Pappammal about 57 years ago. The plaintiff, Jagadambal, Gopalan and Subramaniam are the daughters and sons of Chinnasamy and married Pappammal in or about 1942, the plaintiff’s mother died. Subsequently, plaintiff’s father married one Nanjammal. Dhanalakshmi and Muniyappan are the daughter and son of Chinnasamy and Nanjammal.

.(ii) According to the plaintiff, her father brought the first defendant as his concubine and began to live with her under the very same roof wherein, his wife Nanjammal was living. When the said Chinnasamy was questioned by Nanjammal, she was beaten and was driven away from the house along with the two children. The defendants 2, 4 and 5 are the sons while the defendants 3, 6 and 7 are the daughters of the first defendant.

(iii) According to the plaintiff, on 210. 1961, the plaintiff’s father executed a deed of settlement in respect of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant, who was a minor then and who was represented by the plaintiff. According to the said deed, the settlor was to be in possession and enjoyment of the house till his life without in any way encumbering the same, that on his death, the plaintiff and the second defendant were to possess and enjoy their respective portions in the house as absolute owners thereof and that nobody else had any right, title or interest in the property.

(iv) According to the plaintiff, the settlor inducted defendants 8 to 13 into possession as tenants in respect of the room portions. At the instance and instigation of the first defendant, the settlor made hurrying attempts to alienate the suit properties by way of sale to one Kandaswamy. The plaintiff and defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.1934 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore for permanent injunction against the settlor restraining him from alienating the suit properties. Subsequently, at the request of the settlor, the plaintiff did not press the suit. On 17. 1984, the plaintiff and the settlor executed a deed of sale in respect of Door Nos.48 and 49 forming part of the suit property to one Suppathal. On 25. 1986, the settlor died and the deed of settlement came into effect. Under the said deed, though the title and ownership vested in the plaintiff and the second defendant on the date of its execution itself, possession of the suit properties were stood postponed till the life time of the settlor. After the death of the settlor, the settlees became entitled to the possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.

.(v) According to the plaintiff, on 16. 1986, the plaintiff issued lawyer’s notice to the first defendant to deliver vacant possession and called upon the defendants 8 to 13 to pay the arrears of rent and future rents also to her. On 26. 1986, the defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply denying the title of the plaintiff to the priorities settled on her. The defendants 1 and 2 averred that the settlement was revoked by the settlor by execution of deed of cancellation on 24. 1962. The defendants 1 to 7 have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest in the properties. Owing to