JUDGMENT :- This appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession with mesne profits, involves a question of considerable interest. We may take the following facts as established beyond controversy by the record. One Velayudhan Pillai, the original owner of the suit property, died on 6-1-1954, leaving a registered will. After the death of this testator, the common ground now between the parties is that his widow Ramu Ammal held the property in her own right, according to the stridhana law of succession. Her daughter Kanthimathi Ammal succeeded to the property after Ramu Ammal, and the parties are agreed that, according to the law of Hindu Mitakshara succession, Kanthimathi Ammal had only a life interest. This Kanthimathi Ammal executed a usufructuary mortgage in respect of the suit property, the assignee of which, ultimately, was the 13th defendant in the suit. Kanthimathi Ammal was alive when the Hindu Succession Act XXX of 1956 came into force. She died on 7-2-1957, without issue.

The plaintiff (appellant) instituted the suit for recovery of possession as against the usufructuary mortgagee in possession (13th defendant) on the following basis. Kanthimathi Amma