The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act in determining the rights of widowed daughter-in-law and the legal obligations of the heirs.

Defendants 5, 8 and 9 in O. S. 45 of 1960 on the file of the Additional District Court,of Parur are the appellants.

2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for partition and recovery of one-half share in plaint items 1 to 9 after declaring that the alienations made by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of plaint items 6 to 9 in favour of defendants 5 to 9 are not binding on her share therein. The trial Judge granted a preliminary decree allowing the plaintiff to recover after partition by metes and bounds l/3rd share in plaint items 1, 2, 4 and 5 and declared that the alienations in respect of plaint items 6 to 9 are not binding on her interest in those items.

3. The plaint items which are nine in number belonged to Vattu Govindan who was a member of the Kudumbi community following Hindu Mitakshara Law modified by custom. Krishnan, Parvathi and Lakshmi are the children of Vattu Govindan through his wife Gouri Bai (referred to in this judgment as senior Gouri Bai). Krishnan's wife is Gouri Bai who is the second defendant. Lakshmi's husband is Krishnan and their children are Raman, Lakshmanan who is the first defendant and Meenakshi who is the plaintiff. The suit proceeded in the court below on the basis that Krishnan predeceased his father Vattu Govindan. After the death of Vattu Govindan and his daughter Lakshmi, there was a Bhaga Udampady Ext. P1 on 14-10-1108 among senior Gouri Bai, second defendant, Parvathi, Raman, 1st defendant and plaintiff. The latter three who were minors were represented by their father Krishnan in Ext. P1.

4. It was not made clear in the trial court whether Krishnan predeceased his father Vattu Govindan. It is gatherable from Ext. P1 that Krishnan predeceased Vattu Govindan and both sides argued the appeal on that basis.

5. A schedule items in Ex. P1 were allotted to senior Gouri Bai to be enjoyed by her for her life with a vested remainder in favour of Parvathi; B

Schedule items therein were allotted to the second defendant to be enjoyed by her during her life-time with a vested remainder in favour of Raman, 1st defendant and plaintiff; C Schedule items therein were allotted absolutely to Parvathi; and D schedule items therein were allotted to Raman, 1st defendant and plaintiff. Raman died unmarried after the date of Ext. P1. Plaint items 1 to 5 are those comprised in D schedule while items 6 to 9 are those comprised in B schedule in Ext. P1. The alienations challenged by the plaintiff are Exts. D2 dated 31-3-1953, D9 dated 11-7-1957, D11 dated 16-7-1122 and D12 dated 11-7-1957. Ext. D2 is in favour of the 6th defendant in respect of item 8; Ext. D9 is in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of item 6; Ext. D11 is in favour of defendant 7 and 8 in respect of item 7 and Ext. D12 is in favour of the 9 defendant in respect of item 9. Defendants 5, 8 and 9 who are the appellants contended that the plaintiff has no right to impeach the alienations. In the lower court their plea was that on the terms of Ext. P1 the properties given to the first, defendant,plaintiff and Raman are to be enjoyed as joint family property and since the plaintiff has been married she ceased to be a member of the joint family of the first defendant and Raman and therefore she is not entitled to claim any interest in the plaint items. This plea which was overruled by the trial Judge was not pressed in this Court. By the terms of Ext. P1, the plaintiff is entitled to one-third share in plaint items 1 to 5 and to a similar share in plaint items 6 to 9 subject to life interest in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed one-half share on the ground that the interest of Raman after his death devolved on her and the first defendant. But the learned Judge allowed her only l/3rd share in plaint items 1, 2 and 4 to 9 and she has not challenged the decree.

6. The main plea of the learned counsel for the appellants was that in view of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the life interest created under the