1. The first defendant in O.S.No.140 of 1982 in the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Srikakulam is the appellant.

2. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the suit for the relief of partition of suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents into three equal shares and to put them in possession thereof.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The first plaintiff and his brother by name Gorle Bhaskara Rao filed O.S.No.45 of 1950 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam for partition against their father and other brothers. A compromise decree was passed on 11.03.1953, where under, different extents of properties were allotted to the shares of various parties. The schedule land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents was allotted in favour of one Kodem Ammadu, the paternal aunt of the first plaintiff with certain conditions. She was entitled to have life estate as regards one-third of it and the vested remainder of that was to pass on to the father of the first plaintiff, by name Achaiah. So far as the balance of two- third is concerned, Ammadu was conferred with the right to enjoy and alienate the property, but, in case it remains in tact during her lifetime, half of it was to devolve upon one Gorle Dalappadu Naidu and the balance upon the wife of her another deceased brother by name Gorle Ammajamma. The plaintiffs are the legal descendants of the said three persons, upon whom the property allotted to Kodem Ammadu was to devolve upon in different shares.

5. The appellant alone resisted the suit. He pleaded that Kodem Ammadu executed two Will Deeds on 24.05.1945 and 12.11.1971 in favour of one Gorle Bullibabu, son of Gorle Dalappadu Naidu bequeathing the entire suit schedule property in his favour. It was also stated that apart from two Wills referred to above, she executed a deed of settlement on 26.03.1972 marked as Ex.B2 in favour of the said Bullibabu for the entire extent of Acs.1.20 cents. The defendant, in turn, is said to have purchased the property under a sale deed, dated 25.02.1979, marked as Ex.B1. The gist of the contention was that the right of Kodem Ammadu vis--vis two-third of the property i.e. Ac.0.80 cents was absolute from the beginning and as regards the remaining one-third, for which life estate was created in her had enlarged into absolute right by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Act').

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit, accepting the plea of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.49 of 1993 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and passed a preliminary decree, as prayed for. Hence, this second appeal.

7. Ms. Anula, the learned counsel appearing for Sri D.Ramalingaswamy, the learned counsel for the first defendant submits that the limited estate that was created in favour of Kodem Ammadu had enlarged into an absolute one, by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and that there was no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. She further submits that even the property that accrues to a woman, under a decree would be governed by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and the mere fact that the property came to be allotted to a woman under a decree does not attract sub-section (2) of Section 14. She places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in VADDEBOYINA TULASAMMA v VADDEBOYINA SESHA REDDY1.

8. Sri A.Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that since the only document under which the property had accrued to Kodem Ammadu was Ex.A1, which is a compromise decree, the exception carved out under sub-section (2) of Section 14 gets attracted. He further conte