The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'sister' in Act 2 of 1929 and its applicability to half-sisters, ultimately determining the presumptive reversioners to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. Two questions which are of some importance were raised in this appeal. The one is whether the word "sister" in Act 2 of 1929, includes a half-sister; and the other relates to the validity and binding nature of an arrangement embodied in a compromise decree in a litigation between the mother of a last male owner and the next presumptive reversioner concerning his estate. The relevant facts are not in dispute. One Muthukaruppa Muthiriyan died in 1921 possessed of property both moveable and immovable and leaving him surviving his two wives Chinnammal and Ammachi Ammal and a son Ganesa Muthiriyan by the said Chinnammal and two daughters, the plaintiffs in this suit, by Ammachi Ammal. Ganesa Muthiriyan died on 11th October 1924 unmarried and Ammachi Ammal died on 12th October 1924. Muthukaruppa Muthiriyans property thus came into the sole possession of Chinnammal. The next presumptive reversioner to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan was his paternal uncle, that is his fathers brother Neelamaga Muthiriyan, defendant 2 in this suit. On 10th March 1926 Neelamega Muthiriyan filed a suit, O.S. No. 85 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Srirangam against Chinnammal and others for an injunction restraining Chinnammal and her brother from committing waste of the property in bar possession and for appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof. His claim was on the footing that Chinnammal inherited the said property as heir to her son Ganesa Muthiriyan and he was the presumptive reversionar to the estate. Chinnammal in her written statement denied that she took the property as her sons heir. She sat up an independent title as the devisee under her husbands will. She alleged that all the property which her husband died possessad of was his self-acquired property, that shortly before his death he made an oral will to the effect that in case his son Ganasa Muthiriyan should die before attaining majority both his wives should enjoy his property for their lives and thereafter his daughters the plaintiffs herein should take the property absolutely and that she was in possession and management of the property, in pursuance of the said will. Thus the claim set up was a denial of any subsisting estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan and any outstanding reversion.

2. After the trial had begun, and evidence had been partly taken, common friends appear to have intervened and brought about a settlement of the matters in dispute and the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing in a razinamah dated 22nd July 1927 and a decree was obtained thereon. The result of the settlement was that the property then available and in the possession of the widow except) jewels was divided into two halves, one half to be enjoyed by Chinnammal for her life and thereafter by the plaintiffs absolutely and the other half by Neelamega Muthiriyan and his sons. The jewels in the possession of Chinnammal were declared to be her absolute property. The suit against the other defendants was withdrawn, each party bearing his respective costs. The above arrangement was given effect to and the parties entered into possession of their respective shares and have been in enjoyment thereof. Two years after this decree, the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act (Act 2 of 1929) was passed and came into force in February 1929 in and by which a sister would be entitled to succeed in preference to a paternal uncle and his descendants. Two years thereafter in January 1931 the present; suit was instituted by the plaintiffs alleging that by virtue of the said Act they became the presumptive presumptive reversioners to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan, that the said compromise that the not operate in any manner whatsoever as against their reversionary right (vide para. 11 of the plaint) and they therefore prayed for a declaration that the said decree could not operate as against them vide, relief (a) in the prayer of the plaint]. They imp leaded as part