Contention that will only recognized a pre-existing right.

Mishra, J.

One Sundaram Pillai executed a Will Exs.A-1 and B-1, on 14. 1937, on the day the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, came into force, disposing of his properties including the suit property, which is item 8 of A Schedule property in Ex.B-1. The relevant will recitals are as follows:

"Will executed this 14th day of April, 1937 by Ko.Rama Sundaram Pillai, son of Ko.Ram Badra Pillai of Vadakku Pogainallur, Nagapattinam Taluk, out of free will and in a sound disposing state of mind. I have become very aged. I am suffering from diabetes for some time and day-by-day I am becoming lean and weak and I have no faith that I will live long. I want to make arrangement in respect of all the movables/immovable properties owned by me and I am making this arrangement out of free will. The entire properties described in the Schedule below including "E’ Schedule and "P" Schedule properties and the outstandings due to me were all myself- acquired properties and I am owning them exclusively. There is no other person entitled to the same. I have my third wife Soundaraththammal. I have no other heirs. Therefore my obsequies/ceremonies shall be performed by my divided brother’s son Subramaniam Pillai son of Seppayam Pillai. The ‘A’ Schedule property belonging to me shall be enjoyed by my third wife Soundaraththammal, without any right of alienation and shall enjoy the income therefrom. After her life time, the entirety of the A Schedule properties shall belong to my elder brother’s son Subramaniam Pillai son of Seppayam Pillai absolutely with the right of alienation and over this property nobody shall have any rights......"

Soundaraththammal, the third wife of Sundaram Pillai, who was given thus life interest with no power of alienation under the Will of her husband Sundaram Pillai, executed a will on 1. 1951 as per the original of Ex.B-2, and on 211. 1974 as per Ex.B-3, a codicil, the combined effect being that the suit property should devolve on the defendant-appellant after the demise of Soundaraththammal. Soundaraththammal died on 3. 1975. The plaintiff-respondent however filed the instant suit alleging that as per the last will and testament executed by Sundaram Pillai, he provided for the devolution of the property under the various schedules therein, provided for the life interest of his widow Soundaraththammal in respect of the A Schedule to the will comprising of 9 items including the suit item, and with regard to the other items and the other schedules in the will, gave right to others including the plaintiff. With respect to A schedule, however, Sundaram Pillai said that after Soundaraththammal’s life time, the entirety of the A schedule property shall belong to his elder brother’s son Subramaniam (and thereafter the plaintiff) absolutely with the right of alienation. Sundaram Pillai continued to enjoy the property till his demise on 17. 1942, and after his death, Soundaraththammal had only a restricted life enjoyment of the property, and after the death of Soundaraththammal on 3. 1975, the plaintiff became entitled to the property as per the terms of the will. The plaintiff-respondent thus claimed the property under the will as absolutely belonging to him after the death of the third wife of Sundaram Pillai, Soundaraththammal. There were several issues and contentions before the trial court, but it pronounced on the main question whether under Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, Act 30 of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Soundaraththammal became the absolute owner and thus acquired right of disposition of the properties described in the Will, Exs.A-1 and B-1, or it was a property given to her under the will and thus under Sec. 14(2) of the Act, after her demise, Schedule A properties vested in the plaintiff, and whether disposition of a property so given to her in favour of the defendant-appellant is valid as she is the widow of Sundaram Pillai, acquired absolute interest in favour of the defen