The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act to determine the validity of property settlement and the evidentiary value of unregistered deeds.

The appellant herein is the first defendant in the suit, who lost before both the Courts below. The suit was laid for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits on the premise that, the plaintiff's mother and the first defendant are daughter and son of Gopal Naidu. On the eve of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the suit properties were settled in favour of the plaintiff on 24.06.1970 by Gopal Naidu as prenuptial settlement. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 15.07.1970. After few years of marriage, misunderstanding surfaced between the plaintiff and the first defendant resulting in their separation. The first defendant continued to manage the suit properties and her status as wife of the first defendant never ceased though a document purported to be deed of revocation of settlement deed was obtained from her by fraudulent means and the same does not bind her. Other defendants are persons claiming themselves as purchasers or intending purchasers of the suit properties from the first defendant. Therefore, they are arrayed as defendants.

2. The defendants contested the suit on the premise that the settlement deed executed by Gopal Naidu on 14.06.1970 is not a valid settlement. The properties are the ancestral properties of Gopal Naidu. Even if the settlement is valid, the bequest under the settlement was jointly for the plaintiff, first defendant and their children. The plaintiff never lived with the first defendant and the children born to the plaintiff was not through the first defendant. They were born for one Veeraiyan, with whom the plaintiff had illegal intimacy. The settlement deed was never accepted or acted upon. In the panchayat held at the village, the plaintiff released her rights under the settlement deed and also a deed of divorce was executed on 24.08.1976. Since then the first defendant enjoying the suit properties absolutely and had alienated several of the suit items to third parties and also had entered into agreements for sale with few others, who are arrayed as defendants. The alleged marriage with the plaintiff itself is not valid, since both of them fall within the prohibited relationship of consanguinity.

3. The trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the suit and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal filed by the first defendant. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the second appeal is preferred by the first defendant.

4. At the time of admission this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law for consideration:-

“Whether the admitted possession of the defendant in respect of the suit property under a document releasing the plaintiff's right, though not registered, will prima facie show the adverse interest against her by the person in possession of the property?”

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant straneously submitted that the settlement alleged to have been executed by Gopal Naidu has perse, no binding force. It relates to ancestral property on which Gopal Naidu himself has no absolute right to settle it, as his own, detrimental to the other sharers. Also empasised that Gopal Naidu executed the settlement deed with fond hope that the plaintiff will lead a peaceful marital life and procure progeny through the first defendant, which was totally shattered by the conduct of the plaintiff and the marriage was broken within a week. The plaintiff started living with other person and begotten children through him. Therefore, she cannot be a beneficiary under the settlement deed, which clearly indicates that the properties are to be enjoyed absolutely only by the descendents born through the plaintiff and the first defendant. Evidently, there is no such decedents.

6. Further, it was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly the suit property is in continuous possession of the appellant/first defendant, therefore, he has perfected the title by adve