Ratio(s) Decidendi-Claim for maintenance is a personal claim.

These two second appeals arise out of two suits tried together and disposed of by a common judgment in the trial Court and by a common judgment by the lower appellate Court. The only point which survives for decision relates to the question whether the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties or in any event whether her rights in the properties have become enlarged into an absolute estate by reason of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts of the case are as follows: (Note: For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the judgment as they are arrayed in the suit O.S. No. 366 of 1963). The first plaintiff is Nallammal, and her husband Palanisami Gounder and one Nallasamy Gounder (senior) were step-brothers. The first plaintiff’s husband died in 1936, leaving behind him his widow, Nallammal (first plaintiff) and a child called Nallaswamy Gounder (junior) who died in 1942. Nallasamy senior died on nth March, 1949, leaving behind him his widow, the first defendant, and two sons (defendants 2 and 3). The second plaintiff is the son-in-law of the first plaintiff, and he claims to be a lessee from the first plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the settlee from the first plaintiff. The suit O.S. No. 366 of 1963 was filed by all the plaintiffs and the second suit O.S. No. 813 of 1962 by the lessee.

3. It is common ground that Palanisami Gounder and his brother Nallasamy Gounder, senior were members of a joint family throughout. As Nallammal claimed that there was a division in the family, Nallasamy Gounder, senior was obliged to take proceedings O.S. No. 143 of 1942 against Nallammal, in which it was held (negativing the contentions of Nallammal) that there was no division in status between Palanisami and Nallasamy senior and that the entire family properties survived to Nallasamy senior. Exhibit A-7, dated 22nd February 1945 is the judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 143 of 1942 and Exhibit B-5 is the judgment dated 17th March, 1946 in A.S. No. 132 of 1945, Sub-Court, Trichy, on appeal therefrom.

4. The plaintiffs’ case is that thereafter there was a panchayat in the family in 1949, at which the first plaintiffs’ claim for maintenance and residence was settled and the suit properties, of an extent of 40 acres of a total of 160 acres owned by the family, were given by defendants 1 to 3 to the first plaintiff absolutely in full quit of her claims for maintenance and residence. As disputes arose between the parties, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession, on the ground that the properties were given to the first plaintiff absolutely under the panchayat or in any event she became an absolute owner under section 14 (1) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground, inter alia, that the properties were given to the first plaintiff only for her maintenance with a stipulation that they should be enjoyed by her during her lifetime without any powers of alienation, with the result that section 14 (2) of the Act alone would apply and that in any event inasmuch as the first plaintiff had surrendered the properties to the second defendant, agreeing to take Rs. 500 per annum towards her maintenance section 14 (1) of the Act would not apply as she was not in possession of the properties when the Act came into force.

5. Both the Courts did not accept the case of the defendants that the first plaintiff surrendered possession of the property agreeing to take Rs. 500 per year towards maintenance. This case of the defendants rested merely upon the interested testimony of the second defendant and was not even put to the plaintiff in the course of her cross-examination. Both the Courts were totally unimpressed with the evidence adduced by the defendants ; they accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that there was no such surrender. The point raised is a pure question of fact an