L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 18.12.2001, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Appeal No.979 of 1990. The appeal, in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree, dated 06.11.1989, passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, in O.S.No.118 of 1987.

The defendants in the suit are the appellants and the sole plaintiff is the respondent. The respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record.

The respondent filed the suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the appellants. He stated that the original owner of the properties was one Mr. Siddireddy Vengalreddy, S/o Ramireddy.

Vengalreddy married Ramakka, but they have no issues. Vengalreddy's father, Ramireddy, had a brother, by name, Sivanagi Reddy, who had a son, by name, Narayana Reddy, the father of the respondent. In other words, Narayana Reddy is the cousin brother of Vengalreddy. It was stated in the plaint that Vengalreddy executed a Will on 05.11.1918 (Ex.A.1) bequeathing all his properties in favour of his cousin brother Narayana Reddy i.e., father of the respondent, however, by creating life interest in favour of his wife Ramakka in respect of items 2, 6 and 7 of the plaint schedule and the vested remainder in respect of those items was created in favour of Narayana Reddy. A recital was made in Ex.A.1 to the effect that the gold and silver ornaments shall be divided between Ramakka and Vengamma, sister of Vengal Reddy, in equal shares.

The respondent pleaded that after the death of Vengalreddy, Narayana Reddy took possession of the properties through his father and at that stage, Ramakka filed O.S.No.257 of 1919 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nandyal, against Narayana Reddy and Vengamma, for declaration to the effect that the Ex.A.1 Will executed by her husband is a forged document and not valid. The suit is said to have ended in a compromise whereunder Ramakka admitted the validity of the Ex.A.1 Will, and in addition to items 2,6 and 7 of the plaint schedule, she was conferred with life interest in respect of other items also and that a provision was made for division of the properties equally between herself and Narayana Reddy. A compromise decree, dated 19.03.1920 (Ex.A.3), is said to have been passed and that thereafter, a deed in terms of the compromise decree was executed.

Ramakkaexecuted a Gift Deed, dated 19.07.1974, in respect of items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule in favour of the 1st appellant and

another Gift Deed, dated 23.07.1994, in respect of items 5 to 7 of the plaint schedule in favour of the 2nd appellant. Thereafter, the 1st appellant sold item 1 to the appellants 3 and 4 through a Sale Deed, dated 27.06.1986 and on 21.04.1986, he sold item 3 in favour of the 5th appellant. The respondent pleaded that none of these documents are valid, since Ramakka did not have absolute rights over the properties. According to him, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') does not apply to the facts and the arrangement provided for under the compromise decree or the documents executed in pursuance thereof would attract Section 14(2) of the Act.

The suit was opposed by the appellants. They have put the respondent to strict proof of the facts pleaded by him, including the one, as to genuinity of the Will Ex.A.1. They pleaded that assuming that Ex.A.1 Will is genuine, it is superceded by the arrangement between Ramakka and Narayana Reddy through the compromise decree, dated 19.03.1920 (Ex.A.3) and a partition deed, dated 16.07.1920 (Ex.A.4). They pleaded that under Ex.A.4, separate items were allocated to Ramakka, may be with life interest, and by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, her limited rights under Ex.A.4 got enlarged into absolute ones, inasmuch as she was alive till 18.07.1987. They have pleaded that Ram