Applicability of the provisions of Section 14(1).

One Kumaraswamy Odayar died in about 1930 unmarried survived by his mother Soundarathammal and his sister Kamalathammal. On the death of Kumaraswamy Odayar, Soundarathammal succeeded to the property as his mother. On 25th November. 1955 Soundarathammal and her daughter Kamalathammal jointly executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Kamalambal, the sister’s daughter of Soundarathammal. Soundaratnammal herself died in 1957 and Kamalathammal died later. The first respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 367 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Valangi-man at Kumbakonam for recovery of possession of the suit property with future profits. Before the suit, Kamalambai had alienated the property to Rathanavelu Odayar and one Ratnaswamy Odayar was in possession of the property as lessee under Rathanavelu Odayar. ‘Therefore, in the suit he impleaded Kamalambal as the first defendant, Rathanavelu Odayar as the 2nd defendant and Ratnaswamy Odayar as the 3rd defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that his grandfather and Kumara-swamy’s grandfather were brothers and therefore he was the nearest male reversioner after the death of Kamalathammal to the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the common ancestor was one Pethaperumal Odayar and he had two sons, Aruna-chala Odayar and Muthuswami Odayar. Arunachala Odayar had tour sons, Peria-sami, Uthandi, Sellaperumal and Ramaswami, who are no more. The plaintiff claimed to be the son of Sellaperumal who died about 45 years ago. Muthuswami Odayar, the borther of Arunachala Odayar, had a son Chinnayya Odayar whose wife was Soundarathammal. Thus, according to the case of the plaintiff, Kumara-samy Odayar was the last male holder and he is the nearest reversioner to him. The defendants put forward principally two contentions, that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner at all and secondly, in any event, by virtue of the provisions contained in section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Kamalathammal became the absolute owner of the property and therefore the settlement effected by Kamalathammal and Soundarathammal in favour of Kamalambal was a valid one. In support of the case of the plaintiff, in addition to examining himself as P.W. 1, he examined an old man aged 85, living in the next street, as P.W. 2 and one purchit as P.W. 3. The admitted case of the parties is that there was no documentary evidence to establish the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather and Kumaraswamy Odayar’s grandfather were Arunachala Odayar and Muthuswami Odayar, the sons of Pethaperumal Odayar. The plaintiff sought to establish his case only on the strength of his own evidence and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The learned District Munsif, by his judgment and decree dated 7th August, 1961, dismissed the suit. He accepted the contention of the defendants with regard to the effect of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that since Kamalathammal became the absolute owner of the property, there was no question of any reversioner subsequent to that stage. With regard to the claim of the plaintiff that his grandfather and Kumaraswamy Odayar’s grandfather were brothers, after discussing the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, he came to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff was not established. As against this judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 115 of 1901 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1962, reversed the conclusion of the learned District Munsif and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established that he was the nearest reversioner. He also came to the conclusion that section 14 (1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not have the effect of enlarging any absolute estate in favour of Kamalathammal. It is against this judgment and decree the first defend