Party to the suit not entering the witness box.

The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a the suit for declaration that the suit properties are their absolute properties and they are entitled to get possession after the life time of Kannammal, the first defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, the appeal filed by Velayudham, the second defendant, challenging the said decree, was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

"The suit properties belonged to one Kalivarada Pillai.

He had no issues. He bequeathed the said properties by a registered Will dated 13.5.1938 in favour of Thangavelu Pillai, the husband of the first plaintiff, by giving absolute right to him and bequeathed usufructs by giving the life estate to Kannammal, the first defendant and her husband Natesa Pillai. After the death of Kalivarada Pillai, the first defendant and her husband were in enjoyment of the usufructs from the suit properties. Natesa Pillai died in 1940. Thereafter, the first defendant alone enjoyed the suit properties as the life estate holder. Thangavelu Pillai, the husband of the first plaintiff died on 12.1.1968 leaving behind his widow, the first plaintiff and his daughters, plaintiffs 2 to 4. While so, the first defendant, who is a life estate holder executed two settlement deeds in favour of Velayudham, second defendant as if the suit properties absolutely belonged to the first defendant. After the death of Thangavelu Pillai, who is the absolute owner of the suit properties, the vested right of Thangavelu Pillai being heritable was inherited by the plaintiffs. Since the cloud is cast upon the title of the plaintiffs through execution of two settlement deeds by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, the plaintiffs issued a notice on 26.1.1975. The first defendant refused to receive the notice, whereas the second defendant after receipt of the notice, gave a reply denying the plaintiffs' right and title. Hence, the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession after the life time of the first defendant."

3. The first defendant Kannammal did not choose to file any written statement independently. The second defendant alone filed his written statement.

4. The case of the second defendant is as follows:

"Kalivarada Pillai had no absolute right in the properties. His father, the owner of the properties, settled those properties in favour of the said Kalivarada Pillai under a gift deed dated 28.12.1922. One of the properties is the first item of the suit properties. Along with the said property, some cash was given. Out of the said cash, the said Kalivarada Pillai purchased the suit item, the house at Pondicherry. As per the said gift deed, Kalivarada Pillai had limited estate in the suit properties and his issues alone have absolute right. Therefore, Kalivarada Pillai had no absolute right over the suit properties and as such, the Will dated 13.5.1938 is not a valid one and would not create any right in favour of the beneficiaries. Even otherwise, after the death of Kalivarada Pillai, the first defendant and her husband enjoyed the properties for more than 30 years and so, the first defendant acquired prescriptive title. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim based upon the Will is an unsustainable one. The two settlement deeds executed by the first defendant, who has got valid title over the suit properties, in favour of the second defendant, are consequently valid and operative. At any rate, the suit is pre-mature, since the first defendant, the alleged life estate-holder is still alive."

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the trial Court. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The second defendant