T.C. Raghavan, J.

1. This litigation had a chequered career and it had been pending for the last about 18 years. The case came up to this Court once in A. S. No. 297 of 1959; and this Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and remanded the case allowing the plaintiff - appellant to amend her plaint on payment of costs and directing the lower court to dispose of the case afresh. The amendment was, probably, not strictly and absolutely necessary, because even the original plaint averred that Padmavathi Ammal, after whose death the dispute arose, had only a life interest -- a limited estate -- in the properties, though it was not specifically averred in the plaint that Sreenivasa Pai, the son on Padmavathi Ammal and the husband of the appellant, had a vested remainder in the properties. However, the case was remanded; and after the remand, the plaint was amended adding a specific recital that Padmavathi Ammal had only a limited estate and that Sreenivasa Pai had the vested remainder. The suit then went to trial; and the District Judge dismissed the suit holding that Padmavathi Ammal had absolute right in the properties and, Sreenivasa Pai having predeceased Padmavathi Ammal