The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in recognizing the rights of a female Hindu in the properties given to her by her husband in recognition of her pre-existing right of maintenance.

The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 12. 1996,

made in A.S.No.51 of 1994, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24. 1994, made in O.S.No.364 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.364 of 1986.

3. The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.364 of 1986 is the appellant in the present second appeal and the defendant in the said suit is the respondent in the second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.364 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsiff, Mayiladuthurai, praying for the relief of declaration to declare that the defendant in the suit had no right to alienate the suit property and for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from executing any document in favour of any person.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of the defendant, namely, Parvatham Ammal. The plaintiffs father Sethurama Iyer had executed a Will, on 9. 1979, bequeathing the properties he had got under the partition along with certain other properties. According to the recitals of the registered Will, the suit house is to be enjoyed by the defendant during her life time and thereafter, it was to be enjoyed by the plaintiff, absolutely. Sethurama Iyer the father of the plaintiff had died and the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit house in accordance with the recitals in the Will. Due to the misunderstandings that had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the issues relating to the properties certain Court proceedings are pending. While so, the defendant, with the wrongful intention of creating loss to the plaintiff, was attempting to settle the suit property in favour of her other son Venkatesan. The defendant has only a life interest in the suit property and therefore, she does not have any right to alienate the same. Even if it was found that the defendant had alienated the suit property before the filing of the present suit, it would be non est in law as it would be illegal. In such circumstances the suit had been filed praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way alienating the suit property. The plaintiff had further prayed for the relief of declaration that even if the property had already been alienated it would not bind the plaintiff in any way.

5. In the written statement filed by the defendant it has been stated that the suit is not maintainable both in law and on facts. The suit has been filed with a view to get unlawful gain and it is speculative and vexatious. Though the relationship of the parties is admitted and the fact that the will had been executed by Sethurama Iyer, on 9. 1979, is also admitted, the interpretation given by the plaintiff regarding the Will has been denied as incorrect. The house property belongs to the defendant, absolutely. As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if only a life interest has been conferred in accordance with the terms of the Will it would enlarge into a full estate. Hence, the defendant is competent to deal with the house property as she likes. The provisions of Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits and Valuation Act, 1955, cannot be applied in the present case. The relief asked for by the plaintiff relates to an immovable property which was worth more than one lakh of rupees. The plaintiffs right and title in the suit property is denied. The plaintiff ought to have valued the suit according to the market value of the suit property. The description, door number and serial number of the suit property are all incorrect. The plaintiff has filed the suit only with the intention of taking away all the belongings of the defendant and to leave her in indigent circumstances. The suit is not properly valued and the proper Court fee has no