The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Sridhana deed and the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act in determining the rights over the properties.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code of second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 211. 1996 in A.S.No.42 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvallur confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 20.09.1994 in O.S.No.156 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri.

The plaintiff who was non-suited before both the Courts below have preferred the present appeal.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of title with respect to the A Schedule property and for recovery of possession of the B and C Schedule properties which formed part of the A Schedule property from the defendants.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit A Schedule property originally belonged to Thayarammal, the grand mother of the first plaintiff. She executed a settlement deed dated 19.08.1948 creating a life estate in favour of daughter Sundarammal, the mother of the plaintiff and vesting remainder in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit A Schedule property. The plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property, after the demise of his mother Sundarammal. The first and third defendants are the elder sisters of the plaintiff. The second and fourth defendants are the sons of the first and third defendants respectively. The defendants came to occupy B and C Schedule properties with the leave and licence granted by the plaintiff and his mother Sundarammal. Alleging that the defendants did not positively respond to the demand made by the plaintiff to effect the B and C Schedule property, the plaintiff has sought for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The written statement filed by the first defendant was adopted by the second defendant. He has contended that Thayarammal gave the suit property to her daughter Sundarammal by virtue of the deed dated 19.08.1948 as a Sridhana. The first defendant is entitled to one-third share in the Sridhana property of Sundarammal, after her demise in the year 1979. The first defendant denies the allegation that she came to occupy the suit property on the basis of leave and licence granted by the plaintiff and her mother Sundarammal. It is contended that the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since her marriage. The first defendant is in possession of a portion of the suit property in her capacity as co-owner, having put a hut over there. She also perfected title by adverse possession of 15 cents in her possession, she claims.

5. The third defendant in her written statement has contended that the suit property was given as a Sridhana to Sundarammal by her mother. She claimed that she has been in possession and enjoyment of a portion of the suit property for some decades. She also claimed one-third share in the suit property and has contended that she had perfected title to a portion of the suit property in her possession by adverse possession.

6. The trial Court returned a finding that the disputed document Ex.A1 is only a Sridhana deed and therefore Sundarammal became the absolute owner of the suit property. The latter clause found in the said document giving absolute right to the plaintiff is found to be in direct conflict with the earlier clause and therefore the same has to be ignored. The trial Court ultimately decided that the plaintiff, D1 and D3 are each entitled to one-third share in the suit A Schedule property.

7. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court returned a finding that though the plaintiffs mother was not given absolute right under the document under Ex.A1, by virtue of the operation of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the limited estate given under Ex.A1 to Sundarammal blossomed into absolute right. By and large, the Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed by the first appellate Court.

8. At the time of the admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for determination:

1. Whether the dis-position of the property through Ex.