accordingly thereby granted him absolute right in respect of the suit properties to be enjoyed by him independently in all aspects and also asserted that she would not, at any point of time, revoke the said settlement deed. Therefore, when there are clear recitals containing in Ex.B1 settlement deed as to the entrustment of the possession of the suit properties in favour of the first respondent and the fact remains that Amin Bibi had not reserved any right of revocation in her favour and considering the relationship of the parties, namely, the settlor and the settlee, being the mother and son and accordingly both are found to be living together at the relevant point of time and the first respondent had been maintaining Amin Bibi along with his family members, in such view of the matter, on account of love and affection, when Amin Bibi is found to have executed the settlement deed in favour of the first respondent and thereby entrusted the possession of the suit properties to him and also entrusted the deed of settlement to the first respondent, in such view of the matter,as rightly put forth by the first respondent's counsel, Amin Bibi would not be competent to revoke the settlement deed and therefore according to the first respondent, the alleged deed of cancellation marked as Ex.A1 is null and void. No doubt, under the Mohammedan law, the delivery of possession following the settlement deed is the essential sine-qua-non for the completion of the settlement. As regards the delivery of the possession of the suit properties as above noted, the recitals pertaining to the same are clearly averred in the settlement deed itself. That apart, the original settlement deed had been only produced by the first respondent marked as Ex.B1. As above noted, there is no material placed on the part of Amin Bibi that she had continued to remain in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties after the execution of Ex.B1 settlement deed. On the other hand, the first respondent has placed materials to evidence his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and accordingly it is seen that he had moved the necessary authorities for obtaining the permission to put up the construction in the suit properties and also obtained the patta and service connection in his name and paid necessary charges to the department concerned and this could be seen from the documents marked as Exs.B9 to B14. Therefore, when it is noted that following Ex.B1 settlement deed, it is only the first respondent, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and consequently, had also obtained the service connection and endeavoured to put up the construction thereon by obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned, in all, it is seen that the claim of Amin Bibi that she had continued to remain in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties despite the execution of B1 settlement deed in favour of the first respondent, as such ,cannot be countenanced.
