An absolute interest in property cannot be limited by subsequent clauses in the same document that purport to impose conditions on the owner's title.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

1. The plaintiff who was not successful in O.S. No. 20 of 1968 on the file of the District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is the appellant. The suit scheduled property belonged to one Thathi Chetti and his permanently kept concubine Muniamma, they having purchased this property under Ex. B-1 dated 25th June 1930. It is common ground that Muniamma, by such purchase, secured an absolute interest over one half of the property. The said half is not in question in this appeal; nor was it challenged in the Court below. The subject matter of this appeal, therefore, relates to the one half interest which Thathi Chetti had over the suit property by virtue of the purchase as above. Under Ex. A-1 dated 8th October 1931 Thathi Chetti executed a settlement deed in and by which he disposed of his one half interest, which we shall hereafter refer to as the interest of Thathi Chetti, and the terms of such settlement are the subject matter of this appeal, as well as in the Court below. We shall presently refer to the recitals in Ex. A-1, as the controversy revolves upon the interpretation of the recitals therein. To continue the narrative, after such a settlement, both Thathi Chetti and Muniamma sold their interest in the property under Ex. B-4 dated 30th November 1934 to the first defendant, who was the son of the concubine. The plaintiffs case is that under Ex. A-1 and in accordance with the recitals therein, Thathi Chetti provided only a life interest in favour of Muniamma, thereafter reserved a life interest in himself and the ultimate remainder was togo to his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and another son. No one on behalf of the other son is interested in this litigation. But the plaintiffs case is that as per the recitals of Ex A-1, the ultimate remainder in the interest of Thathi Chetti reverted to him and his brother after the death of Muniamma in 1967 and that, therefore, the claim of the first defendant as absolute owner of the entirety of the property (he having secured the other half from his mother) is untenable and hence he was entitled to a decree for partition of the A schedule property and for separate possession of his half share therein, as the ultimate remainderman of the estate of his father. This was resisted by the first defendant on the ground that the recitals in Ex. A-1 are clear and even if liberal interpretation has to be given to the recitals in Ex. A-1, on an overall reading of it, it is clear that after the life time of his mother Muniamma, Thathi Chetti, her paramour, was the immediate remainderman and he having joined his mother under Ex. B-4 to sell the one half share in the property, nothing more remained for the plaintiff to succeed to the estate of Thathi Chetti in so far as the plaint property is concerned. The lower Court framed the following issues on the above material pleadings.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of A schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits and if so to what amount?

3. Whether the transfer of A schedule property by settlement deed dated 8th October 1931 is void as being opposed to public policy?

4. Whether Bodiammal alias Muniammal constructed the house in the suit A scheduled land out of the income from the said land?

5. Whether the 1st defendant had perfected his title to the A schedule land by adverse possession?

6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Additional Issues:

1. Is the suit for partition not maintainable?

2. What, if any, is the value of improvement? and held against the plaintiff. Hence the appeal.

2. Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami, appearing for the appellant, strenously contended that the recitals in Ex. A-1 should be read as a whole and even though it is a deed of settlement, the principles of interpretation applicable to Wills would also apply while reading and understanding a sattlement deed, that what Muniamma, the concubine of Thathi Chetti, got under Ex. A-1 was only a life i