There is no enlargement of the estate derived b y the lady.

The decision in this appeal turns on the answer to the question as to whether S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, or S.14(2) of the Act, should be applied to the facts of the case. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. 47 of 1977, on the file of the subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, preferred this appeal, against the judgment and decree in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. To arrive at the decision, necessary facts have got to be set out. The suit property takes in a site of an extent of 32-1/2 cents and the superstructures standing thereon. The suit property admittedly belonged to one Sundaram Pillai, who died on 18-07-1942. His wife was one Soundarathammal. The couple had no issue. The plaintiff was the son of the elder brother of Sundaram Pillai. The defendant is the son of the brother of Soundarathammal. Soundarathammal died on 05-03-1975. On 14-04-1937 as per Ex. B-1, Sundarm Pillai executed a Will, disposing of his properties including the suit property. The suit property is admittedly Item 8 of A schedule in Ex. B-1. The disposition of A schedule Ex. B-1 which takes in the suit property, as Item 8 thereof, has been done in the following manner(Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.)

According to the defendant, the present superstructures were constructed by Soundarathammal. As we could see from the above recitals, Soundarathammal was given a life interest with no power of alienation, and after her lifetime, the suit property was directed to go absolutely to the plaintiff alone.Soundarathammal executed a will on 03-011951 as per the original of Ex. B-2 and on 25-11-1974, as per Ex. B-3, Soundarathamal left a codicil; the combined effect of Exs. B-2 and B.3 being the suit property should devolve on the defendants after the demise of Soundarathammal. The conflicting claims to the suit property arose obviously after the demise of Soundarathammal. The plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the basis of Ex. B1. The defendant would take cover under Exs. B-2 and B-3 and resist the claims of the plaintiff. It is true that the Court below on the pleadings put forth by the parties raised a number of issues. The Court below ultimately held that the estate given to Soundaratharnmal under Ex. B-1, enlarged itself into an absolute estate on the coming into force of the Act and the will of Sundaram Pillai Ex. B-1 could not be availed of by the plaintiff to seek the reliefs as he did. As a result, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs.

2. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the present appellants legal representatives of the plaintiff, would submit that the recitals in Ex. B1 are unambiguous and specific and they have not countenanced any pre-existing right against property in Soundarathammal, and the recitals must alone govern her rights, and if so governed she got only a restricted estate within the meaning of S.14(1) of the Act. and hence the estate could not be held to have got enlarged as per S.14(1) of the Act. As against this Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, herein would submit that Soundarathammal had a right to maintenance not only from her husband Sundaram Pillai, during his lifetime, but also from the successors in interest to his estate and that right was a tangible right against property and when Sundaram Pillai executed Ex. B1 and gave the suit property to Sundarathammal, that was done only in reiteration and confirmation of the preexisting right of Soundarathammal against the property and S.14(2) of the Act could not come in the way of S.14(1) of the Act taking the field and making the estate acquired by Soundarathammal enlarging itself into an absolute estate.

3. There are certain features, which have to speak, and if I take note of them I find that