JUDGMENT : The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff, 5th defendant and one Raman Pillai are the children of the 1st defendant. They are governed by the Nair Act. In the partition under Ext. A in their tarwad on 3rd Vrischigam 1106 the shares of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and the 5th defendant were put in E schedule of that partition deed. These three shares were to be enjoyed together and each was entitled to a third in the properties. The plaintiff stated that the one-third share of the 1st defendant had been settled upon her with a right to the 1st defendant to enjoy the same for life and for charging the properties for bona fide purposes except in selling the same or mortgaging them with a term. The plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant had executed a mortgage deed Ext. B on 3rd Edavam 1118 in favour of one Ponnamma Nadachi and subsequently she sold the equity of redemption on 5th Meenam 1119 by Ext. C to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff had filed O.S.1193 of 1118 in the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Padmanabhapuram to set aside this mortgage deed. It was during the pendency of this suit that the sale deed Ext. C also was executed by the 1st defendant. This suit is to set aside the sale deed Ext. C. 2. The defence contention was that the restraint on alienation placed on the 1st defendant was void, that the 1st defendant was competent to deal with the properties allotted to her in any way it pleaded her and that the plaintiff was incompetent to question them. 3. The two suits were tried together and the leading judgment was written in the connected suit. The suit to set aside the mortgage was dismissed and this suit was decreed setting aside the sale deed. The appeal against this decision in the District Court was A.S. 504 of 1124 an and the appeal by the mortgagee was A. S. 85 of 1125. Both these appeals were heard together and the appeal relating to the mortgage was dismissed and the appeal by the vendee was allowed. The present appeal is filed against the decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit to set aside Ext. C sale deed. 4. The result of the appeal will depend on a proper interpretation of Cl. 17 of Ext. A partition deed. The present appeal is filed against the decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit to set aside Ext. C sale deed. 4. The result of the appeal will depend on a proper interpretation of Cl. 17 of Ext. A partition deed. The 1st defendant, plaintiff and Bhaskara Pillai are respectively the executants 6, 7 and 9 in Ext. A. For their share they were given the properties mentioned in E schedule. It is described there that E schedule consists of three shares that are to go to executants 6, 7 and 9. Cl. 17 reads thus:- XXX The lower appellate court thinks that Ext. A evidences an alienation. By the partition, the tarwad properties are divided and each party is given his or her legitimate share. Such a partition deed will not come under the definition of family settlement. The 1st defendant after getting her share settles it on the plaintiff and she says that she will enjoy the properties for life and execute certain documents as mentioned in the clause. This will have the effect of a family settlement so far as the 1st defendant and the plaintiff are concerned and so any restriction as to the powers of the 1st defendant would be binding on her. Decided cases are many to show that family settlement will not come under the purview of S.10 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decisions in Kesavan Velayudhan v. Padmanabha Pillai 13 T.L.J. 432, Thacharakutty Cunjamman Ooran v. Pariya Thavukkattukutty, 11 T.L.J. 259, Basangowda Virupaxgowda v. Irgowadathi Kallangowda A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 276 are pertinent. Thus the restriction in Cl. 17 of Ext. A partition deed will not be void. The plaintiff was therefore competent to question the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. That sale deed is invalid and it was executed beyond the competency of the 1st defendant. The review of the lower appellate court is therefore wrong and the decree passed by it is reversed. Ext. C is set aside and the decree of the trial court is restored with costs to the plaintiff in all the three courts. The 2nd defendant is alone made liable for such costs. Allowed.