M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

(1) HAVING aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, holding that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 5/8th share, the defendants/appellants have filed the present appeal.

(2) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, A-schedule property was purchased by Chandrasekaran in the year 1935 and since the date of purchase, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment. In the year 1946, the said chandrasekaran executed an irrevocable settlement deed in favour of his wife Pattammal, the mother of the defendants in respect of A-schedule property. The said Pattammal died in the year 1952 leaving the appellants and her husband as legal heirs. After the death of pattammal, the said Chandrasekaran got married to the first plaintiff, Kannammal. Through Kannammal, the other plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born. In the year 1975, the settlement deed which was executed in the year 1946 was revoked through a revocation deed executed by the said Chandrasekaran. In 1976, the said chandrasekaran died. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming right over 5/8th share in the suit property.

(3) ACCORDING to the defendants, the settlement deed executed by Chandrasekaran in favour of Pattammal cannot be revoked, as the said deed is an irrevocable document. After the death of Pattammal, Chandrasekaran and three defendants, namely, the children of pattammal, are each entitled to 1/4th share. Therefore, the plaintiffs, if at all, are entitled to any share, each plaintiff would be entitled to have l/28th share in the properties left by the deceased Chandrasekaran. As per law, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are entitled to have 4/ 28th share in A-schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs suit demanding 5/8th share in the A-schedule property is not maintainable.

(4) ON the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed. During the course of trial, P. W. 2 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and Exs. A. 1 to A. 11 were marked. On the defendants side. D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. B. 1 to B. 4 were marked.

(5) THE trial Court, after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, decreed the suit as prayed for holding that the plaintiffs would be entitled to the 5/8th share. Having aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree, the present appeal has been filed.

(6) MR. U. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that under Section 123 of Transfer of Property act, the settlement deed cannot be revoked since the said Section provides that there must be an agreement between the parties for the suspension or revocation of the said deed on the happening of any specified event. In the present case, the settlor has clearly stated in ex. B. 2 that he would not revoke or cancel the settlement deed. Under those circumstances, in the absence of any provision mentioned for revocation in the settlement deed, the revocation deed, Ex. A. 11 would not help the plaintiffs, as it would not nullify the effect of Ex. B. 2, settlement deed, which is irrevocable.

(7) ON the other hand, Mr. N. Pappiah, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend, in justification of the reasoning given by the trial Court, that under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift or settlement would be completed only when both the requirements, viz. offer and acceptance are fulfilled and in the instant case, though ex. B. 2 would show that the settlor has settled the property in favour of Pattammal, there is no material to show that the said property had been handed over to Pattammal and consequently, the said Pattammal had enjoyed the said property under her exclusive possession and therefore, in the absence of the material to show that Ex. B. 2 was acted upon, it shall be held that the plaintiffs being the legally wedded wife and children, would be entitled to 5/8th share in the suit property.

(8) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and gon