A settlement deed is a valid gift if it transfers ownership of the property to the donee and if the donor hands over possession of the property to the donee.

1. Obstructor in E.A. No. 26 of 1981 in E.A. No. 18 of 1981 in E.P. No. 82 of 1979 in O.S. No. 423 of 1975, on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. She died after the filing of Second Appeal. Her legal representative has been impleaded as second appellant.

2. Relevant facts which have given rise to this Second Appeal may be stated as follows:-

A suit was filed as O.S. No. 423 of 1975, by the first respondent herein against her husband and father-in-law for maintenance. The schedule property was alleged as belonging to her husband and she claimed a charge over the property. It was further said that her husband has executed another settlement deed in favour of his father, i.e., her father-in-law, and the same is invalid.

3. Parties went on trial, and ultimately the trial Court came to the conclusion that the settlement deed executed by the husband in favour of his father is invalid and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and also to realise maintenance by sale of the charged property.

4. In execution of the decree, the plaint property was brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder. Sale Certificates were also issued to her and pursuant to the same, when the Court Amin wanted to hand over possession, the appellant herein filed an obstruction petition. The (first) appellant (who is now no more) was none other than the mother-in-law of the decree holder. It is the case of the (first) appellant that the property was purchased by her in the year 1958, and she executed a settlement deed in favour of her son on 26-8-1964, on certain conditions. It is her further case that on 2-5-1977, she has cancelled it and she is now the owner of the property. It is her further case that the settlement deed executed by her in favour of her son, i.e., the husband of the decree-holder will not create any interest in him and, therefore, the Court sale as well as the subsequent auction through Court are all invalid. She also said that even after the settlement deed, she continues to be in possession of the property.

5. The claim was seriously opposed by the decree-holder. After taking evidence, the executing Court passed an order on 22-12-1981 permitting the decree-holder to take possession by removing the obstruction. The unsuccessful obstructor filed A.S. 78 of 1982, on the file of lower appellate court. It also held that the obstructor has no right over the property, and the document Ex.B-2 dated 26-8-1964 is a gift and a right in praesenti is created. The subsequent cancellation deed was found to be invalid.

6. Both the Courts below have also concurrently found that it is another attempt made by the mother-in-law to defeat the daughter-in-laws right to get maintenance and that the application was lacking in bona fides . Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the cancellation deed was executed after the decree was obtained in the case, with an intention to deprive the maintenance right holder from realising the fruits of the decree obtained by her.

7. The concurrent judgments of both the Courts below are challenged in this Second Appeal.

8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was raised for consideration: —

“Whether Ex.B-2 is a settlement deed or a Will?”

9. Before interpreting a document, the circumstances under which the present obstruction petition came to be filed, are explained by the Courts below. The decree-holder is the wife of the first defendant in the suit. He refused to maintain his wife. A suit was filed to recover maintenance and arrears of maintenance, and there was a charge on the plaint property. The second defendant was impleaded in the suit since he had taken a document from his son. The son claimed his right on the basis of Ex.B-2 settlement deed dated 26-8-1964. As owner of the property, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his father. That was the reason why the father-in-law was also made a party. In the suit, it was