A settlement deed executed by a coparcener in consideration of marriage is not a gift but an alienation for consideration and is valid and binding on the alienor and his heirs.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. The second plaintiff is the appellant. She came on record as the legal representative of her deceased husband, who filed the suit for partition and separate possession for her 1/4th share in the suit properties. The properties belonged originally to the joint family of one Natesan Padayachi and his four sons. Natesan died in about 1940. His eldest son Narayanaswami died in 1945 and his son is the first defendant. The second defendant is another son of Natesa by a name Ramalingam. The first plaintiff was the third son of Natesan and he died after the institution of the suit on 15.9.1981. The fourth son of Natesan was Govindan, who died in 1970. His sons are defendants 3 and 4 and his wife is the fifth defendant. The family owned about 130 acres of India. The first plaintiff executed a settlement deed on 1.9.1984, marked as Ex. B.1 giving his undivided share to the first defendant to be enjoyed by him for his life and the remainder to be taken by his children absolutely. It was recited in the document that the first defendant shall maintain the first plaintiff and his wife, the second plaintiff during their lifetime. In 1972, the coparceners entered into a partition under Ex. B2 dated 14.1.1972 dividing all the the properties in which the first defendant got an extent of about 55.80 acres including the share of the first plaintiff, which was given to him under the settlement deed dated 1.9.1964.

2. In the plaint the relevant portion reads as follows:—

“While so plaintiff was induced into executing a document on 1.9.84 purporting to be a deed of settlement in favour of 1st defendant. He was induced to do so in the belief that the settle will be faithful to plaintiff and will treat him properly. It was not intended to be effective at all. The settlement was never accepted or acted upon. It was not duly attested. Under these circumstances the settlement is non est and it has no value at all.”

The plaint also made a reference to the partition of 14.1.1972 and raised a plea that it was wholly void. On the basis of the same the plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share.

3. The defence is on the following lines the plaintiffs had no issues and the first plaintiff arranged for the marriage of the first defendant with his wife sister, Savitri Ammal. As Savithri ammal’s father insisted that properties should be settled on the first defendant as a marriage provision, the first plaintiff being the paternal uncle of the first defendant and also the brother in law of Savithri ammal executed the settlement on 1.9.1964 with the intention of giving effect to the same. The other members of the family did not object to the same and it is false to say that the settlement was brought about by inducing the plaintiff to execute the same. The deed was acted upon and the patta was transferred in favour of the first defendant. He was paying the agricultural Income-tax and kist and he was in enjoyment of the properties. Subsequently after the partition in 1972 the first defendant took possession of all the properties which fell to his share and continued to enjoy. The document is valid in law and without seeking to set aside the same the suit by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has also no right to question the deed of partition between the coparceners and without making a prayer for setting aside the same, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

4. The trial court found that the plea of the plaintiffs that it was brought about by inducement is not made out and that the document is fully supported by consideration in as much as it was executed as a marriage settlement. The trial court also held the suit was not sustainable without a prayer by the plaintiff to set aside the document and the claim was really barred by limitation, Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit.

5. The aggrieved second plaintiff has preferred this appeal contending that the document dated 1.9.1964 is voi