The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement deed did not confer immediate rights to the property on the adopted son, and as an adopted son, he had to share the property with the after-born brother and his step-mother according to Hindu Law.

Rajamannar, J.

1. The property in suit originally belonged to one M. Thiruvengada-chariar. In 1930 he was aged about 62 and he had no issue living at the time. His wife Alangarammal was alive. He resolved to take the present respondent, the plaintiff in the lower Court, in adoption, and had fixed that the adoption should take place on the 13th July, 1930. Two days prior to that date, i.e., on the nth July, 1930, he executed a settlement deed marked Ex. P-1, on a construction of which the decision in this case depends. The deed itself was executed in favour of Alangarammal, his wife. The executant says I am now nearly 62 years of age and have become old. Since you are my wife and on account of love and affection which I have towards you, I am bound to maintain you till your lifetime and further since I have made arrangement to take in adoption on 29th Ani of this year (13th July, 1930), Parthasarathi, minor son of Gomatam Krishnaswami Aiyangar, aged about ten years, and since I have for similar reasons decided as it is necessary that an arrangement should be made, during my lifetime itself, for your food, clothe, etc., expenses, I have in pursuance thereto, executed wholeheartedly in your favour this settlement deed.

2. It is recited that Alangarammal had been put in possession of the property and that she should utilise the income from the property for her maintenance and other expenses. Then occur these words After your lifetime, the aforesaid boy whom we are going to adopt shall take possession, hold and enjoy the aforesaid house and site with absolute right and title. You shall enjoy only the rent income from the aforesaid house, as mentioned above, till your lifetime, and you shall have no power to subject the aforesaid house and site to any encumbrances or alienations such as mortgage, sale, etc. In the event of your death during my lifetime itself, I shall enjoy the aforesaid house and site, subject to the conditions aforesaid.

3. On the 13th July, 1930, the plaintiff-respondent was taken in adoption by Thiru-vengadachariar who also executed a deed in favour of the father of the adopted boy who was then a minor. After reciting the adoption the deed provides as follows : " Hereafter, my adopted son shall remain with me in the family and enjoy, exclusive of the house and site given as and for the maintenance expenses of my aforesaid wife Alangarammal under the registered settlement deed, dated 11th July, 1930, the remaining entire Immovable and moveable properties in my possession, in the capacity as son. with absolute right and title.

4. Alangarammal died in 1931. But Thiruvengadachariar survived her, married another wife, the first defendant (first appellant) and begot a son by her, the second defendant (second appellant) in 1934 and eventually died in April 1941. The third defendant is not a material party. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed in July, 1941, by the adopted son against the surviving widow and the natural born son for recovery of possession of the property covered by the settlement deed. In the written statement the defendants pleaded that the alleged deed of settlement read with the deed of adoption conferred upon the plaintiff only such rights as he would have as a member of a joint family and therefore on the death of Thiruvengadachariar the plaintiff would have to share the property with the defendants. In paragraph 5, it was also pleaded that the settlement deed was a maintenance arrangement and that it did not confer any right on the plaintiff.

5. The learned Additional City Civil Judge held that under the settlement deed the plaintiff acquired rights to the suit house on the death of his adoptive parents and the defendants were not entitled to any rights therein. A decree was therefore passed in favour of the plaintiff for possession. Defendants 1 and 2 appeal.

6. I do not agree with the City Civil Judge in the construction of the settlement deed Ex. P-1. He overlooked certai