The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limited estate of Gomathiammal under the settlement deed enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thereby extinguishing the reversioners' claim to the property.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 263/1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai are the appellants in this appeal. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in that suit while respondents 4 and 5 are the other defendants in the suit. That suit was filed for declaration of title, for recovery of possession, for past mesne profits and for other reliefs. On contest, the learned trial Judge granted a decree declaring the plaintiffs title and for recovery of possession. He relegated the enquiry into the mesne profits from the date of plaint to a later stage. No decree had been granted for past mesne profits. Defendants 1 and 2 are therefore before this Court in this appeal. Heard Mr. AR.L Sundaresan learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. T. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for R1 to R3.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in short is as follows:

One Raman Chettiar @ Ramasamy Chettiar was owning the suit property. He executed a settlement deed dated 09.04.26. His wife is Sankarammal and his foster daughter is Subbammal. The settlement deed provides for a life interest in favour of the settlor ad his wife and after their lifetime, the vested remainder on their adopted daughter Subbammal. There is another registered deed of settlement dated 29.05.31 executed by Raman Chettiar Ramasamy Chettiar and Subbammal. Both the documents relate to the suit property. Under the latter settlement deed a life estate was created in favour of Gomathiammal (daughter of Subbammal) and after her death, the property should go to the children of Veerabadran, who is the brother of Gomathiammal. The plaintiffs are the heirs of said Veerabadran while defendants 1 and 2 claim under Gomathiammal. Gomathiammal died on I 17.02.80 and therefore on that day I succession for the plaintiffs opened as per the settlement deed dated 29.05.31. Defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Gomathiammal. Defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of the property claiming some interest under Gomathiammal. As Gomathiammal herself was a mere life estate holder under the settlement deed dated 29.05.31, all her subsisting rights in the suit property came to an end on her death on 17.02.80. Therefore, the defendants cannot have any interest in the suit property at all, Hence, the suit.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement in substance contending as follows:

It is true that there is a settlement deed dated 09.04.26. The settlement deed dated 29.05.31 is not true and valid. It is void abinitio. On the death of Ramasamy Chettiar and Sankarammal, it is not correct to say that none else has any interest in the suit property. The settlement deed dated 09.04.26 would alone govern the situation. It is an irrevocable settlement deed and the terms of it cannot be changed. The third plaintiff was not then the heir of Veerabadran. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not born then. Subbammal died before 1931 and a few year thereafter, Raman Chettiar Ramasamy Chettiar also died. On the death of Ramasamy Chettiar, S ubbammal became the absolute owner of the property comprised in the settlement deed dated 09.04.26. She was, therefore, in possession of settled properties in her own rights till her death. On Subbammals death her daughter Gomathiammal had become entitled to the suit property on her own. Gomathiammal was in absolute enjoyment of the suit property in her own right till she died in the year 1980. On her death, defendants 1 and 2 succeeded to the suit property. Gomathiammal never had a life estate under the settlement deed dated 29.05.31. Even assuming it is so, yet the settlement deed is in recognition of Gomathiammals preexisting rights to maintenance and residence and to be in possession having advanced Rs. 800/- for discharge of debts. Gomathiammal had to get a sum of Rs. 800/- from the settlors. The settlement deed of the year 1931 is not a mere gift deed. Gomathiammal was a young childless widow on that date and only in that context, restrictions on her power of aliena