Settlement of ancestral properties can be made for pious purposes only.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate Court has filed these Second Appeals.

2. The Plaintiff is the daughter of first defendant/Rangappa Gounder, who died pending suit. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the wife of Velappa Gounder, the another son. The 4th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and wife of 1st defendant. 5th defendant is the grandson of the 1st defendant. On the basis that the 1st defendant had executed a settlement deed Ex.Al dated 18.7.1980 with respect to the suit properties and from the date of the settlement deed, the plaintiff claims that she has been in possession of the suit properties, by accepting the same. On the basis that under the said settlement deed, she got share of the entire properties, the plaintiff filed the said suit, for partition.

3. While defending the said suit, the 1st defendant came forward with the plea that the said document Ex.Al had been revoked under Ex.A2, dated 16.1.1981. The plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.1636 of 1984 seeking declaration of her title and for injunction with respect to the suit properties. In the said suit, she came forward with the plea that the 1st defendant has no right to revoke the said settlement deed as it has been acted upon. The said suits were defended on the basis that the 1st defendant had no right to execute the settlement deed and the same was obtained by fraud. The plaintiff did not get any possession pursuant to the said settlement deed. After coming to know of the fraud, the 1st defendant had revoked the settlement deed.

4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition in O.S.No.198 of 1981 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.1636 of 1984. So aggrieved the defendants in the respective suits filed Appeals in A.S.Nos.114 and 115 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court Coimbatore. The learned Sub-Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the Appeals by dismissing the suits. Hence these Second Appeals.

5. The substantial question of law arises out of the judgment of the lower appellate Court is:- "Whether the 1st defendant was having any right to execute the settlement deed Ex.Al with reference to the joint family properties in favour of the plaintiff?"

6. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit only on the basis of the settlement deed Ex.Al. Even according to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit properties. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said settlement deed was acted upon.

7. The respondents have come forward with the specific plea that the 1st defendant had no right to execute the said document, and as a matter of fact, he has not executed such a document. Moreover, the same was cancelled under Ex.A2, and even the said document was not given effect to and acted upon.

8. The trial Court has held that the suit properties are also the joint family properties, that Ex.Al was executed by the 1st defendant and it is a true document, that the 1st defendant has no right to cancel the settlement deed Ex.Al and so Ex.A2 rectification deed is not valid and that the father, the 1st defendant had gifted the properties to her daughter, the plaintiff, while discharging her moral obligation.

9. Though the lower appellate Court also found that the suit properties are the joint family properties, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court holding that the settlement deed Ex.Al was not acted upon by accepting the gift deed and the 1st defendant has no right to gift the properties even to her daughter, the plaintiff.

10. I am not able to accept the reasonings given by the lower Court regarding the 1st defendant's right in making gift of an ancestral estate. Hindu law texts approved the giving of the property to daughters at the time of partition or at the time of their marriage, as the case may be, but also condemn the dereliction of