Property settled upon a wife for maintenance by her husband under a document is covered by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and she becomes the full owner of such property.

The above appeal has been filed against the order dated 20-8-1980 made in A. S. No. 44 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur whereunder the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, remanded the matter for fresh disposal in respect of two points, namely, (a) whether the plaintiffs are the only next or the nearest reversioners to the estate of Sami Pandaram; and (b) whether Veerabadran is or is not the next or nearest heir or a person in the male line of succession to Angamuthu, Vathan, Kappa and Chinniah.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose it deciding the points raised before me are as follows :

Respondents 1 and 2 have filed O. S. No. 69 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai praying (a) for a declaration that the plaintiffs, and 9th defendant, who is the 8th respondent before this Court, are entitled exclusively to the one-fourth right of the deceased paternal uncle Swami Pandaram in doing pooja services during that turn and in the income from the suit properties as his sole heirs at law and (b) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 the appellants before this Court from in any manner interfering with or obstructing the enjoyment of that right and collection of rents from the suit properties by the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs was that the temple known as Sri Angalamman temple at Thottiyam village was the private family temple for which the plaintiffs and their ancestors were the hereditary trustees and poojaries, that one Muthuveeran, the great grandfather of the plaintiffs, was originally the sole trustee and poojari, that he had four sons by name Angamuthu, Vathan, Kappa and Chinniah, that on the death of Muthuveeran, his four sons succeeded to that right and that all the four sons were doing pooja by turns and enjoying the income from the suit properties, that Sami Pandaram is entitled to 1/4th right, that he settled his 1/4th right in favour of his wife Angammal, that Sami Pandaram died in 1950, that subsequently in a litigation resulting in O.S. No. 581 of 1950 which ended ultimately in S.A. No. 833 of 1955 on the file of this Court, it has been held that Angammal, wife of late Sami Padaram, became entitled to the 1/4th share and rights of late Sami Pandaram by virtue of the settlement deed dated 11-2-1914, that Angammal had only a life interest in the property as per the said settlement deed executed by late Sami Pandaram, that she died issueless on 1-12-1977 and consequently the 1/4th right of Sami Pandaram reverted back to the family of the plaintiffs and they alone are entitled to succeed to that right and do the pooja service in that turn also as the sole and legal heirs to the deceased Sami Pandaram.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 disputed the claim of the plaintiffs contending that they were entitled to the right and share of Sami Pandaram by succession as well as by alienation, that Angammal's life estate got enlarged as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act (Central Act 30 of 1956), that thereafter she executed a settlement deed on 31-7-1964 conferring upon Veerabadra the absolute rights, that the first defendant, who is the wife of the said Veerabadra and the second defendant his only daughter were entitled to the same and that the third defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant and also the sister's son of Angammal, wife of Sami Pandaram and consequently both by virtue of alienation as well as by succession traced by them to Sami Pandaram they are entitled to the 1/4th right indisputably belonging to Sami Pandaram and held in the earlier litigation to belong to Angammal under the settlement deed of the year 1914. The 9th defendant with whom the plaintiffs claimed a joint right, disowned any rights by filing a written statement contending that the properties of Sami Pandaram devolved on defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of the settlement deeds