The intention of the party executing the document is paramount, and the entire deed must be read to understand the intention of the executant. The court emphasized the significance of clauses regarding vesting and possession in determining the nature of the settlement deed.

1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2010 passed by the Sub-Court, Tambaram, in A.S.No.110 of 2010, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the District Munsif Court, Alandur, in O.S.No.487 of 1999, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A recapitulation and 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to declare that the revocation of settlement alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 4.2.1988 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, men, agents, servants and persons purporting to act on behalf of the defendant from in any way alienating the suit property belonging to the plaintiff."

(extracted as such)

(ii) The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. On the plaintiff's side, one P.Ramalingam was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B6.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"a) Whether the Courts below were right in holding the Exhibit A2 was only a Will and not a Settlement Deed, when the original documents of title were handed over to the Settlee at the time of execution of said deed itself?

b) Whether the once the appellant had accepted the gift settlement, the donor had any right to revoke the same subsequently, especially when the power of revocation was admittedly absent in the Settlement Deed?

c) Whether the Courts below erred in not placing the burden on the defendants to establish the pleas of undue influence and mental depression at the time of execution of Exhibit A2 Settlement Deed?

d) Whether the Courts below were right in finding that Exhibit A2 was only a Will and not a Settlement Deed merely because the executor had retained life interest, without examining whether such interest was vested or contingent?"

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff advanced his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(i) The original settlement deed Ex.A2 was handed over by the settlor in favour of the settlee as a measure of indicating that the settlement as contemplated in the settlement deed came into effect as on the date of execution of the settlement deed itself.

(ii) Ex.A2-the Settlement deed can never be termed as a 'Will' and it was only assessed for stamp duty as settlement deed and accordingly it was registered.

(iii) Simply because there is a clause to the effect that the property shall vest in the settlee only after the death of the settlor and his sister, that it does not mean that the property did not get vested even as on the date of execution of the settlement deed. The deed has to be read as a whole. Accordingly, if seen, it is clear that the intention of the settlor was to benefit the trust with an intention that the trustee would spend the income arising out of the property for doing poojas to the deity and the Courts below fell into error in not appreciating the evidence available on record.

(iv) The contention on the side of the settlor that because of some undue influence and mental depression, he executed Ex.A2-the Settlement Deed was not proved, even then