Alienation of property done by Hindu widow legal.

1. The plaintiff/appellant who failed before the courts below in getting the decree as prayed for, has filed the above Second Appeal.

.2. The suit properties were part of the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai who died on 212. 1914 leaving behind him his widow Nagammal, and they did not have any issues.

.At the time of the marriage, Nagammal was minor and she became major in the year 1921. She alienated some of the properties from the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai. The plaintiff and his brothers on the basis that they are reversioners to Thavasilingam Pillai filed O.S. No. 212 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli challenging the said alienation. The said suit ended in compromise between the parties and the decree is marked as Ex.A-14. As per the said compromise, admittedly, certain properties were given to the said Nagammal. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties, Nagammal executed a settlement deed under Ex.B-6 in favour of the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant sold the said properties to the defendants 1 to 3 under Exs.B.11 and B.12 on 16. 1969. Thereafter the plaintiff/appellant claiming that he is entitled to succeed to the suit properties as reversioners to the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai filed the present suit in O.S. No. 407 of 1979 for recovery of possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. The same was resisted by the defendants/respondents stating that the suit properties are the absolute properties of Nagammal and so she is entitled to execute the settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant and thereby the defendants 1 to 3 got valid title to the suit properties. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved against the same the plaintiff/appellant filed appeal in A.S. No. 2 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur. The lower appellate court also dismissed the appeal confirming the findings given by the trial court. Still aggrieved the appellant has filed the above Second Appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly argued that under the guise of the compromise Nagammal took restricted estate of Thavasilingam Pillai and so she cannot get absolute right over the suit properties on the basis of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

.4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his submission has relied on the decision in Hussain Uduman v. Venkatachala Mudaliar, 1974 (II) M.L.J. 275. In the said case a compromise decree came up for interpretation with respect to the scope of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The terms of the compromise decree showed that the first and second schedule of the properties were allotted to one Gomathi Ammal, widow of the original owner for her maintenance to be enjoyed for her life and after her lifetime, Palaniandi and his heirs should become absolutely entitled to the said properties; it is also stated that the said Gomathi Ammal should not alienate the said items during her lifetime. On the basis of the said clause in the said compromise and also the rejection of the case of the third defendant therein that the said Gomathi Ammals restricted estate got enlarged into absolute estate, the learned counsel has submitted that the principle set out in the said decision will apply to the facts of the present case. I am not able to accept his submission. The contention of the third defendant therein was not accepted only because of the factual finding that the said Gomathi Ammal was not in possession with respect to Survey No.60/1 and not on the basis of the said compromise alone. In view of the above, the said decision will not be of any assistance to the case of the appellant.

5. In the present case, to appreciate the right of the widow, it is necessary to extract the relevant clause in the compromise decree, which is as follows:-

"T