Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies only to property possessed by a female Hindu as a limited owner, and does not apply to property possessed on a provisional or tentative arrangement.

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:- The 7th defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties. In order to appreciate the point that arises in the appeal it is necessary to set out the relationship of parties to the suit. One Kuppu Naidu had four sons by name Balakrishna Naidu, Kesava Naidu. Rangaswami Naidu and Krishnaswami Naidu. Kesava Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu died issueless. The 7th defendant is the widow of Kesava Naidu, Balakrishna Naidu died leaving two sons Venkatuchala Naidu and Sami Naidu. Venkataehala Naidu died in 1948. The first plaintiff is the widow of Venkatachala and the second plaintiff is the daughter by another wife of Venkatachala. Sami Naidu is the first defendant in the suit, and his son through the first wife is the second defendant, and his second wife is the sixth defendant. Krishnaswami Naidu died leaving his son, the third defendant and grandsons, the fourth and fifth defendants. In the suit the first plaintiff claimed one-fourth share in the plaint B schedule properties, which are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 and half share in the plaint C to J schedule properties except items 11 to 22 of C schedule which belonged to Venkatachala's branch. Though defendants 1 to 6 filed written statements and a number of issues were framed on the basis of their written statements, when the suit came on for trial, the plaintiff's and defendants 1 to 6 entered into a compromise and a partition decree was passed in terms of the compromise.

2. So far as the 7th defendant is concerned, her husband Kesava Naidu having died in 1925, it was pleaded in the plaint that she was entitled to be maintained from the family properties and that therefore she had been impleaded in the suit. The 7th defendant filed a written statement claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.100 per month and also a sum of Rs.500 per annum for pilgrimage expenses and a provision for residence. On this written statement issue 21, viz. what is the maintenance payable to the 7th defendant, was framed. Pending the suit, the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956) came into force on 17-6-1956. The 7th defendant filed an additional written statement claiming that she was given for the maintenance items 1173 to 1194 and items 1196 to 1201 of plaint B schedule properties and that after the Hindu Succession Act she had become the absolute owner of these items of properties.

3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge framed additional issues on this. The suit having been compromised in so far as the other defendants are concerned, the parties went to trial so far as the claim of the 7th defendant alone is concerned. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that the 7th defendant was only a licensee having been permitted by the owners of the properties to remain in possession of certain items and that such being the nature of her possession she did not acquire absolute title by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, but that she was entitled to a maintenance of Rs.100 per month and also a sum of Rs.500 per annum towards pilgrimage expenses. A charge was also created on the joint family properties for due payment of the maintenance to the 7th defendant. The 7th defendant has filed this appeal claiming that she had become the full owner of the items of properties which were in her possession under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Pending the appeal the 7th defendant died leaving a settlement deed conveying the properties in her possession in favour of the wife of the 4 th defendant, Ramalakshmi Ammal. The said Ramalakshmi Ammal has been impleaded as the second appellant in this appeal and she claims the properties conveyed in her favour as the absolute properties of the settlor, the 1st appellant.

4. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the 7th defendant had become the full owner of items 1173 to