A document can exhibit characteristics of both a settlement deed and a Will; the settlor's intention, whether immediate or contingent ownership, is key in determining the nature of the document.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by learned 1st Court of Additional District Judge, 24 South Parganas, in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2017, thereby affirming the judgement and decree dated 31st January passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 117 of 2000.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, Sri Ram Gopal Shaw, the father of the parties to this appeal was the owner of ‘A’ schedule property. He acquired the ownership by purchase. On 3rd October, 1989 he executed a deed of family settlement in respect of the properties which he owned including the ‘A’ schedule property, he divested his right title interest to a trust and appointed himself as sole trustee. He made it clear that after his demise the plaintiff would become the absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property. The defendant has been residing in the portion of the ‘A’ schedule property along with his family members as a licensee. After the demise of Ram Gopal Shaw, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue with his possession in respect of a portion of ‘A’ schedule property which comprises of one room on the northern side of the ground floor together with ante chamber, one small room under stairs and a room on the southern side of the first floor together with facilities of both privy, electricity, filter water which is depicted as ‘B’ schedule property.

The plaintiff, however, being annoyed by conduct of his brother decided to revoke the licence and issued a notice to quit on 7th February, 2000 through learned Advocate calling upon the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the said property. The defendant refused to act in terms of the said notice. Hence the suit.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that after the demise of Ram Gopal Shaw he also acquired ‘A’ schedule property by inheritance along with other legal heirs of Ram Gopal Shaw. He denied that he was given licence to occupy the property as claimed by the plaintiff.

5. Learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence, both oral and documentary was pleased to pass the decree for eviction of the defendant.

6. The defendant made an unsuccessful attempt to get the judgement and decree of learned Trial Court reversed in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2017. Learned First Appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere with the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Hence this second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question :

1. Whether both the Courts below were justified in interpreting the document styled as deed of settlement as a document creating the right in the plaintiff in praesenti ignoring the fact that such right would vest only upon the death of the settlor?

2. Whether both the Courts below were justified in going by the nomenclature of the document without looking into the language used therein in order to interpret the same and gathering the intention of the settlor?

3. Whether the interpretation of a document being a core issue can be regarded as substantial questions of law within the purview of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure when admittedly neither such case was made out in the pleading nor taken before the First Appellate Court?

7. Assailing the impugned judgement Mr. Anirban Bose, learned Counsel representing t