K.S. Palaniswamy, J.

1. This petition, filed under Section 74 of the Indian Trusts Act,. (II of 1882), raises an interesting but complicated question of Mahomedan Law. The relevant facts are these. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner and is the daughter of the first respondent and late M. Abdul Basith Sahib. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sister's children of the first respondent. The site upon which the petition-scheduled building stands originally belonged to the first respondent. The susperstructure belonged to Abdul Basith. On 15th February, 1951, Abdul Basith executed a settlement over the petitioner-scheduled property in favour of the first petitioner without reference to the first respondent, his wife. On 25th October, 1956, Abdul Basith revoked that settlement with the consent of the first petitioner. On 27th July, 1959, Abdul Basith and the first respondent jointly executed a document, which is marked as Exhibit P-1 in this case, styled as settlement deed, constituting themselves as trustees for the. purpose of carrying out the terms of the trust and providing for the management of the property after their lifetime. The point in controversy is a