The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the settlement deed (Ext. A) and the principles of construction of wills and other documents, as well as the application of Hindu law in determining property rights.

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 and the properties, after the death of Padmavathi Ammal, being her streedhana properties, devolved on the second defendant, the second respondent, the daughter of Padmavathi Ammal and the wife of the first defendant, the first respondent. It is against this decision of the lower court that the appeal has been filed.

2. We may now state the facts of the case. The properties included in schedule A to the plaint and other properties belonged to a Vasudeva Pai, the husband of Padmavathi Ammal. Vasudeva Pai was a businessman; and his son inlaw, the first respondent, was also associated in the business. Vasudeva Pai was adjudged insolvent and all his properties including the properties in schedule A were sold by the Official Receiver to a third party. The first respondent started a business of his own and acquired fairly considerable properties. And he purchased the properties of Vasudeva Pai sold by the Official Receiver to the third party. From out of those properties he settled under Ext. A the properties in schedule A on 12th December 1932 on Padmavathi Ammal after the death of Vasudeva Pai. Padmavathi Animal had then her son Sreenivasa Pai living and also a daughter, the second respondent. Sreenivasa Pai died subsequently leaving his widow, the appellant, and a daughter just a baby at the time of his death. After the death of Sreenivasa Pai, Padmavathi Ammal also died; and after her death the properties left by her were taken possession by the first and the second respondents. Before the death of Padmavathi Ammal, from the income of the properties in schedule A, she purchased other properties shown in schedule B to the plaint. The appellant brought the suit which has given rise to the appeal claiming that the properties left by Padmavathi Ammal vested in her husband Sreenivasa Pai, so that after his death -- whether he predeceased Padmavathi Ammal or not -- the appellant was entitled to the properties by succession. She also claimed that even the purchase by the first respondent was benami for the family of Vasudeva Pai with funds advanced by Vasudeva Pai. Yet another contention urged by the appellant in her plaint was that the settlement under Ext. A was with the intention that the properties should constitute joint family properties. Respondents 1 and 2 denied these allegations; and according to them, what was conferred on Padmavathi Ammal was the absolute estate in the properties, so that, after her death, the properties devolved on her daughter, the second respondent, the properties being streedhana properties of Padmavathi Ammal. In the alternative, another contention was also raised by respondents 1 and 2 -- that what was created under Ext. A was a series of life estates, even in favour of unborn children of Sreenivasa Pai, so that the absolute