1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.4.2001 passed in A.S.No.174 of 2000, on the file of District Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999 passed in O.S. No.109 of 1998, on the file of Subordinate Court, Myladuthurai.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for recovery of possession or in the alternative for partition of the suit property into two equal shares and allot half share to the plaintiff and for further reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is the daughter of the second defendant and she is her only surviving legal heir. The father of the plaintiff and the husband of the second defendant Govindaraj Iyengar died in the year 1987. Govindaraj Iyengar had a sister, namely, Renganayaki and the father of Renganayaki as well as Govidaraj Iyengar namely Venkatachariar died about 45 years ago and the property described in the plaint belonged to Venkatachariar and when he was alive, he executed a Will in favour of his daughter bequeathing the suit property absolutely under the Will dated 14.12.1938 and by virtue of the same, Renganayaki became the full owner of the suit property and Renganayaki looked after her brother Govindaraj Iyengar and out of love and affection, in his favour, she had executed the settlement deed in his favour on 18.02.1994, conveying the suit property in favour of Govindaraj Iyengar to be enjoyed by him, till his life time, without any power of alienation and thereafter, to be enjoyed absolutely by the legal heirs of Govindaraj Iyengar. The above said settlement deed was accepted by Govindaraj Iyengar and he was enjoying the suit property and Venkatachariar, while alive, mortgaged the suit property in favour of third parties and incurred debts and Renganayaki mortgaged the suit property in favour of third parties, to discharge the earlier debts. As per the settlement deed dated 18.02.1994, Govindaraj Iyengar had no right of power to alienate the suit property excepting the right of enjoying, during his life time and he died in the year 1987 and on his death, his legal heirs are to take the suit property absolutely, on the death of Govindaraj Iyengar, the persons, who are entitled to succeed to the suit property are the plaintiff and the second defendant as vested remainder holders. The plaintiff had a brother, by name, Jagannathan alias Chinna Venkatachari and he predeceased his father, when he was aged about 1½ years. While so, Renganayaki as well as Govindaraj Iyengar had executed another document dated 27.04.1949, styling it as a settlement deed, said to have been executed in favour of Aravamudha Iyengar, father of the first defendant, who is also the sister's son of Renganayaki and in the said settlement deed, Renganayaki, Govindaraj Iyengar and the second defendant being the executors, however, Renganayaki not having any right in respect of the suit property at that point of time, since, she had already divested all the right over the suit property, by virtue of the settlement deed dated 18.02.1994 and as Govindaraj Iyengar was also having only life estate over the property and the second defendant without understanding the contents thereof, also signed the document at the dictation of Govindaraj Iyengar and thus, the settlement deed dated 27.04.1949, is not valid and no right will flow to any one from the said document. The first defendant's father, at the foremost, would be entitle to remain in the suit property as long as Govindaraj Iyengar was alive and as the settlement deed dated 27.04.1949, had been executed by the persons having no right and title over the suit property, the person who claim to acquire right under the same cannot also derive any right or title to the suit property and Aravamudha Iyengar is also now dead and therefore, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to surrender the possession of the suit property several times, but h