Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- This appeal by the defendant is by Special Leave and challenge is to the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after eviction of the defendants and claimed mesne profits both past and future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju happened to be sons of Ramamurty. The two brothers had amicably partitioned their properties in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from Veemrajus share in 1928, the widow raised dispute and mediators brought about a settlement leading to the execution of a Deed of Settlement dt. August, 18, 1937, whereunder Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and upon her death, those properties were to revert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the widows death, the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties but defendant No. 1 who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a Will dt. May 14, 1962 of the widow.

3. The main question that arose for consideration in the Courts below was whether the life-estate created in favour of Veerarajus widow under the Settlement Deed had been transformed into full ownership under S. 14(l) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three Courts have held that the life-estate carved out under the 1937 settlement did not get transformed into title in favour of the widow and she did not acquire any alienable interest in the properties to bequeath in favour of her brother.

4. The only question which has been canvassed at the hearing is whether in the facts of the case, sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 of the Act is applicable. It is not disputed that sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 is an exception to sub-sec. (1) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-sec. (2), the transformation provided for in sub-sec. (1) would not take place.

5. The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-sec. (2) and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore, sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 would not be attracted. The submission of the appellants learned counsel that the Settlement Deed brought the properties covered by it in exchange or in lieu of properties unauthorisedly alienated by Ramamurty and as the widow had full title in the alienated property, title must be held to have accrued in favour of the widow in the properties covered by the settlement cannot be accepted.

6. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

7. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Court.

Appeal dismissed.