The court affirmed that a female's limited estate under a will evolves into an absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which cannot be restricted by subsequent bequests.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The intrinsic interplay between Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the impact of a second bequest in a Will comes up for consideration in these appeals.

1. RSA No.7/2015 is filed by the first defendant in OS No.323/2005, whereas RSA No.789/2015 is by the plaintiffs in OS No.58/2006, both suits were on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kuthuparamba. The appellant in RSA No.7/2015 is the 2^nd respondent in RSA No.789/2015. Since these appeals raise common questions of law, facts leading to the filing of OS No.58/2006 are narrated herein.

2. The plaint schedule properties belonged to one Koran Gurukkal. On 15.04.1955 he executed a registered Will bearing No.10/1955 of SRO, Kuthuparamba, bequeathing the property in terms of the dispositions made therein. In one item, namely item No.9, there exists a school in the name and style, Mooriyad Central Upper Primary School. In terms of the said Will, the right of management of the school was vested with his wife, Bachi @ Janaki. She was the third wife of Koran Gurukkal, and in their wedlock, they had six daughters and two sons. In terms of the Will, the wife of Koran Gurukkal had the right to manage the school and also to appropriate the profits derived from the management of the school till her death, and on her death, the right of management was vested with Gopi, the plaintiff in OS No.323/2005. Later, the school was shifted from item No.9 of the property scheduled to the Will to item No.1 and it continued to function. While so, OS No.253/1978 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kuthuparamba was instituted by the 1^st appellant in RSA No.789/2015 (1^st plaintiff in OS No.58/2006) for the partition of the property of Koran Gurukkal, and judgment was rendered on 30.11.1979 (Ext.B2). In the said suit, the partibility of item No.1 was one of the issues raised by the plaintiff in OS No.323/2005, who was the third defendant in OS No.253/1978, and the question of partibility was found against him, and it was held that item No.1 property was partible subject to the life estate of Bachi @ Janaki. Accordingly, a preliminary decree for partition was passed. On 18.03.1982, a final decree was passed in FDIA No.312/1980 (Ext.A1), and accordingly, the suit properties therein were partitioned. Thereafter, on 04.09.1992, Bachi @ Janaki executed a settlement deed (Ext.B3) stating that her share will be devolved upon all her children. As regards the management of the School, another settlement deed was executed on 10.06.1998 (Ext.B4), wherein, Bachi @ Janaki conferred her right of management of the School to the first defendant in OS No.323/2005. Later, on the death of Bachi @ Janaki, Gopi claimed the right of management of the School. The claim was resisted by others, contending that once the suit property was found to be partible, Gopi lost his claim for the right of management of the School. The death of Bachi @ Janaki was on 16.08.2002, as evident from the death certificate (Ext.B7). Since there was a dispute regarding the management of the School, Gopi filed OS No.32