SAROJINI Vs. K. RATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true character of a document described, stamped and registered as a settlement deed is what this court is mainly called upon to decide. Is it a gift or a will

(2.) The suit was for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of plaint schedule item No.1 and for partition of plaint schedule items 2 to 5. The trial court granted the prayer for partition of items 2 to 5, the correctness of which is not challenged in this appeal; only the decree granting declaration of title to and recovery of possession of item No.1 is questioned by the 4th defendant, who claims title to it and who is in its possession.

(3.) Plaint schedule item No.1, which has an extent of 60 cents, along with some other properties belonged to one Narayanan and his wife, Bhargavi Amma. Defendants 1 and 2 are their son and daughter. They had another son, Vishvambaran, who predeceased them. The 1st plaintiff is his widow. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the 3rd defendant are their children. In 1985 Narayanan and Bhargavi Amma (hereinafter called settlors) executed and registered Ext.A1 deed which is described as a settlement deed. The properties described in A and B schedules in the document were allotted to the 1st and 2nd defendants. The property described in 'C' schedule was allotted to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the 3rd defendant (hereinafter called minor donees) who were minors at that time. This property is the plaint schedule item No.1.