In this second appeal by the chief contesting first defendant who has failed in both the Courts below, the short question for consideration is whether the settlement deed Exhibit A-1, executed in favour of the plaintiff by her husband just before the marriage, is wholly void, or valid as against his share in the properties covered by the deed. The Courts below have upheld the plaintiff’s claim of a half share in the properties, declared her right to the same, and decree with mesne profits. The suit properties, an extent of one acre and 80 cents in R.S. No. 1812 and a house in Vedakrishnapuram village, Chidambaram Taluk, stood in the names of the plaintiffs’ husband Muthulinga Padayachi. His brother is one Palanivelu Padayachi, father of defendants 5 to 8 in the suit who have not contested the plaintiff’s claim. The finding of the Courts below is that, on the plaintiff’s parents insisting upon a settlement of property being made in her favour, as a consideration for the plaintiff marrying him, Muthulinga Padayachi settled the properties on her under the deed Exhibit A-1 dated 30th June, 1943. The Courts below have accepted the evidence that the settlement was a condition fo