10.Materials placed on record go to disclose that the properties involved in the suit belonged to Samikkannu, the plaintiff's father and the husband of the first defendant. It is found that Samikkannu married the first defendant as his second wife and it is further seen that Samikkannu had executed a settlement deed dated 07.07.1964 in favour of the first defendant in respect of the properties described in the plaint A schedule. The abovesaid settlement deed has been marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of the recitals of the abovesaid settlement deed, it is found that Samikkannu had approached the parents of the first defendant with the proposal to marry the first defendant and as the parents of the first defendant insisted that, Samikkannu should settle certain properties in favour of the first defendant as a precondition for marrying her, accordingly, Samikkannu accepting the abovesaid condition laid by the first defendant's parents, it is found that he had settled the plaint 'A' schedule properties in favour of the first defendant by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed and further would go to show that, on the date of the settlement deed itself, he had handed over the possession of the properties to the first defendant conferring absolute life interest in respect of the properties settled on her and further the settlement deed also recites that the properties should be taken by the children born to Samikkannu and the first defendant absolutely after the life time of the first defendant and in case, no child is born, the properties should be taken absolutely by the children born to Samikkannu through his first wife. There is also a recital that the settlement deed shall take effect from the date of the marriage. It is thus found that, on a reading of the recitals of Ex.A1 settlement deed, the first defendant has not made any condition as such that she should be settled the properties of Samykannnu as a precondition for the marriage and the same has been insisted only by her parents and Samikkannu had accepted the same and accordingly, it is found that out of love and affection towards the first defendant, chosen to settle the properties described in the 'A' schedule in favour of the first defendant and with that view, giving effect to the settlement deed immediately, it is found that he handed over the possession of the settled properties in favour of the first defendant giving her life interest to enjoy the properties settled wholly and giving absolute interest to their offsprings and in case of the failure of the same, conferring absolute title to the children born to him through his first wife. It is thus found that as far as Ex.A1 settlement deed is concerned, it is not seen to be a document executed for any consideration in favour of the first defendant as demanded by her. On the other hand, the condition is found to have been imposed only by the first defendant's parents that she should be settled some properties
