(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.284 of 1985 and the defendants in O.S.No.381 of 1985, both suits on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti, are the respective appellants in the two second appeals.
(2.) IT is not necessary to go into details leading to the filing of the second appeals. Suffice it to say that the decision in the appeals depends on the interpretation of a settlement deed marked as Ex.A.1 dated 30.7.1931 in the suits. The question is as to whether Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would be attracted in interpreting Ex.A.1" Ex.A.1 is a settlement deed executed by one Sadayandi @ Annamalai and his brother Poilon in favour of their sister Unnamalai Animal. As per the terms of the settlement deed, the settlee Unnamalai Ammal is, to enjoy the property during her lifetime without powers of alienation and after her lifetime, her issue will have to take the property absolutely and in case she died issueless, the property would revert to the brothers Sadayandi and Poilon. The appellant in SA 625 of 1989, who is the second appellant in SA 626 of 1989, claims title under a settlement deed, marked as Ex.A.3, bearing date 23.3.1977 from Unnamalai Ammal. The suit O.S.No.284 of 1985 was for a permanent injunction restraining two of the heirs of Poilon from interfering with the alleged possession of the appellant/plaintiff of the suit property. The other suit is by the sons and daughters of Poilon against Sadayandi's heirs for partition and separate possession of the properties alleged to belong to the heirs of both the brothers. Ex.A.1 recites that as per the wish of their father to settle the property mentioned in the schedule thereunder the property was being settled on Unnamalai Ammal, that she was to enjoy the property without encumbering, the same and after her lifetime her off-spring to take the property absolutely and in case of the sister Unnamalai Ammal dying issueless, the property would revert to the brothers. The trial Court found that it was only a life estate given to Unnamalai Ammal and she had no pre-existing right in the property, subject matter of the settlement deed, and she having died issueless the property had to revert to the heirs of the brothers and that Section 14(1) is not attracted and only Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply. This was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.
(3.) IN the other decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a Division Bench of the. said Court held that when there was clear intention in a settlement deed, creating only limited interest, it could not be said that the settlee acquired an absolute right. It was held that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act alone would apply.