(1.) THE two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether under the terras of Ext. P1 will executed by Ittiachan in 1083 his widow Ittianam was competent to execute Ext. P3 lease dated 22 9 1093 to the defendant's father, in respect of the plaint properties and (2) If so whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to clauses (i) to (vii) to sub-section (1) of S.3 of Act I of 1964. THE plaintiff who is entitled to possession of the plaint items under the terms of Ext. P1 instituted the suit for their recovery from the defendant. THE suit has been concurrently decreed by the courts below. THE second appeal is filed by the defendant against the decrees of the courts below.
(2.) PARAMEL Ittiachan executed Ext. P1 Will on 19 10 1083 in respect of his properties including the plaint items. Ittiachan died in Mithunam 1083. The plaint properties are A schedule items 1 and 2 in Ext. P1. It is agreed that A schedule items 6 and 8 in Ext. P1 were given absolutely to Ittianam. The dispute between the parties relates to the nature of the right created in favour of Ittianam in respect of A schedule items 1 to 5, 7 and 9 to 17 in Ext. P1. It is admitted that these items were given to the plaintiff's father subject to the rights created in favour of Ittianam.
(3.) F. ]nIbnse hkvXp?v DmIp \nIpXnbpw an hmcfpw \o Xs sImSppsImIbpw s]mfnsgptXXmbn hm AhImiw apXembXv \o ASv \ns t]v s] mfnsgpXnpsImIbpw thWw.