A widow's limited estate in property can become absolute by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, even if she had conveyed the property to another person and then repurchased it after the commencement of the Act.

SADASIVAM, J.:- Appellant Jagannatham Pillai sued to recover possession of the suit properties as reversioner to the estate of one Sivachidambaram Pillai, who died issueless on 17-1-1904, leaving his young widow Valambal as his only heir under the Hindu law. Valambal claimed in O.P.506 of 1912 on the file of the District Court, Thanjavur, for letters of administration of the estate of her husband Sivachidambaram Pillai relying on a will alleged to have been executed by him on 17-1-1904. but really dated 18-1-1904. The appellant's father Nataraja as the nearest reversioner contested the claim of Valambal on the ground that the said will was not genuine and his plea was upheld and the Letters of Administration were refused. On 29-5-1919 Valambal executed a settlement deed, the original of Ex.A.5, in respect of almost all the suit properties in favour of her younger brother Souriraja Pillai, the second defendant in the suit.

On 19-3-1959 Valambal obtained a settlement deed under the original of Ex.A.7 from the second defendant in respect of the properties covered by the settlement deed the original of Ex.A.5 and, within four days, dealt with the properties by executing a settlement deed under the original of Ex.A.8 in favour of her cousin Kunjithapatham Pillai, the first defendant in the suit, as though she became entitled to the properties absolutely. Subsequently, she died on 14-1-1961. After exchange of notices evidenced by Exs.A.10 and A.11, the appellant filed the suit along with his paternal aunt Kalyaniachi from whom also he obtained a settlement deed in his favour. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, who tried the suit, found that Items 20 to 22, 44, 48 and 49 did not belong to the estate of Sivachidambaram and upheld the claim of the contesting defendants 1 and 2, that Valambal acquired an absolute right to the properties covered by the original of Ex.A.5 in respect of which she obtained the settlement deed, the original of Ex.A.7 and in the result, dismissed the suit. Hence the first plaintiff Jagannatham Pillai has preferred this appeal impleading the defendants and the second plaintiff as respondents.

2. The finding of the trial court that the appellant Jagannatham Pillai is the reversionary heir to the estate of Sivachidambaram under the Hindu Law, but for the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is not disputed, in view of the undisputed fact that his father Nataraja Pillai was put forward by Valambal as the nearest reversioner of her husband Sivachidambaram even when she applied for letters of administration with the will of her husband annexed in 1912.

... ... ... ... ...

(His Lordship dealt with the facts and then proceeded.)

3. When this appeal first came up before Venkataraman and Krishnaswami Reddy, JJ. the appellant filed C.M.P.2690 of 1967 for reception of Ex.A.26, a release deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant on 24-11-1948. and Ex.A.27, a settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on the next day. These documents were received by this court and the parties were permitted to adduce additional evidence before the trial court. The learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram recalled and examined D.W.1, Souriraja Pillai and also examined D.Ws.6 and 7 and marked additional documents Exs.A.28 to A.31.

4. The plea taken by defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement is that though Valambal executed the settlement deed, the original of Ex.A.5, it was not given effect to and that she continued to remain in possession of the properties comprised in it, with the result that she became entitled to the properties absolutely by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has in paragraph 25 of his judgment found that it is difficult to hold with any degree of certainty on the unsatisfactory evidence on record that the settlement deed Ex.A.5 was given effect to, but he has proceeded to