The Second Appeal is instituted by the defendants in the suit, against the preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into two shares and for allotment of the western moiety to the plaintiff-temple (respondent). There are only three grounds involved in the appeal, of which the first ground alone need detain us at any length. The facts relating to that ground are as follows:

The original owner, Angammal, conveyed this property under Exhibit A-4, dated 19th September, 1938, which is styled as a settlement deed, and which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, can by no means be characterised as a testamentary disposition. In the relevant part of this deed, the settlor stipulated the following terms. I am making a free translation here of the Tamil text, which is quoted both by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.

“Venkatasami Naidu (my son) and his male heirs are to take and attain one-half (moiety) of the property. Chinnasami Naidu (my other son) and his male heirs are to similarly take and attain onehalf (moiety) of the property.”

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff temple obtained the rights of Chinnasami Naidu in the property under a