The main legal point established is that settlement deeds, once validly executed, are irrevocable under the Transfer of Property Act, and subsequent attempts to revoke such deeds through revocation deeds or wills may be deemed invalid if they do not comply with the legal requirements.

1. Both the appeals are arising out of common judgment and decree made in O.S.Nos. 808 and 781 of 1987. O.S.No. 781 of 1987 was filed by the daughter of Peter and Elizabethammal in respect of A and B schedule properties belonging to father and mother respectively, on the strength of Ex.A1 Settlement deed dated 06.06.1978 executed by father and Ex.A4 settlement deed dated 10.04.1987 executed by mother respectively in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is filed against the brothers, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Whereas O.S.No.808 of 1987 was filed by the daughter-in-law of Peter and Elizabethammal in respect of the same property, on the ground that the property belonged only to the father-in-law Peter and mother-in-law Elizabethammal, has no right over the same and father-in-law died, leaving behind his sons and daughter and he executed registered Will dated 05.08.1982, bequeathing the property in favour of the second son and his wife and from the date of death of father-in-law, the daughter-in-law, who is the wife of the second defendant in the other suit filed by the daughter and the plaintiff in O.S.No.808/1987 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the same was sought to be interfered with. The reliefs sought for in O.S.No. 808 of 1987 filed by daughter-in-law against mother-in-law and sister-in-law are for declaration and injunction on the basis of Ex.B3 Will and Ex.B2 Revocation of settlement deed both executed by the father-in-law.

2. While the daughter of the original owner as the plaintiff in O.S.No.781 of 1987 claims that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties on the basis of the settlement deeds, her claim is resisted by the sons and daughter-in-law as if the settlement deed is not acted upon and by reason of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to fulfill the condition, subject to which, settlement deed was executed, the same was subsequently revoked and the owner had, during his lifetime executed a Will in favour of other parties, as such, the daughter cannot claim any right on the basis of the settlement deeds. The trial Court tried both the suits together and decreed the suit in O.S.No.781/1987 filed by the plaintiff/daughter on the ground that the owner having executed Ex.A1 Registered settlement deed in favour of the daughter, had no right to revoke the same and to further execute a registered Will under Ex.B2 revocation deed and under Ex.B3 Will respectively and the daughter-in-law is not the beneficiary under the so called Will and she further failed to prove the genuineness and voluntary execution of Ex.B3 Will and it is the daughter, who has been, from the date of settlement deed, in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the strength of the settlement deeds executed by both father and mother in respect of A and B schedule properties.

3. Aggrieved against the same, the sons of the original owner and brothers of the plaintiff and who are the defendants in O.S.No. 781 of 1987 and the daughter-in-law who is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 808 of 1987 filed two separate appeals in A.S.Nos.76 and 75 of 1991 respectively and both the appeals are dismissed by common judgment dated 28.02.1994 thereby confirming the findings rendered by the trial Court in favour of the daughter on the ground that A and B schedule properties are assigned to the daughter on the strength of settlement deed executed by the father and mother in respect of the same and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the settlor, after the settlement, had no right to execute Ex.B2 revocation deed and Ex.B3 Will.

4. Hence, these second appeals before this Court by the sons/defendants in O.S.No.781/1987 and by the daughter-in-law/ plaintiff in O.S.No.808/1987. Both the appeals are admitted on the following common substantial questions of law.

a. Whether the C