G. Jayachandran, J.

The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.22 of 2008, dated 19.07.2010, reversing the judgement of the trial Court in O.S.No.587 of 2006, dated 22.08.2007 for partition. The sole point, in this case, is about the interpretation of the settlement deed dated 27.05.1973, (Ex.A-6) executed by one Palani Gounder.

2. Palanigounder has executed the settlement deed, wherein he has reserved the right of enjoyment for life, without power to alienate (or) encumber to his wife Subbathal and after her lifetime, the property should devolve absolutely on the male decendants of his two sons by name Viswanathan and Swaminathan.

3. The sparing parties are grandsons of Palanigounder. The plaintiffs are born to Viswanathan, the eldest son of Palanigounder and the defendant is born to Swaminathan, the younger son of Palanigounder. While the parties accept that the settlement deed marked as Ex. A-6 was effected and acted upon and after the demise of the life interestee Subbathal, on 20.11.2002, their right has open up, they differ on the proportion of share and they are entitled to. Thus, the begging question before the Court raised by the parties is whether they have to take the property per stripes or per capita?.

4. The trial Court has interpreted the settlement deed (Ex A-6) with the aid of the judgement of this Court reported in 2004 (3) CTC 707 (Lalji Rao and two others v. Jayarama Rao @ Jawarharlal Rao and others) and held that the property has to be divided per stripes. The sons of Viswanathan (plaintiffs) are entitled for one half together and the son of Swaminathan (defendant) is entitled for other half. Accordingly a preliminary was passed.

5. On appeal by the defendant, the first appellate Court reversed the trial Court judgment holding that as per the settlement deed (Ex A-6), the property should devolve upon the grandsons equally. The division must be per capita and not per stripes. The first appellate court has reversed the trial Court judgment on relying upon the Federal Court Judgment rendered by 5 Judges at the ratio of 4:1 (Hon'ble Justice Mahajan dissenting) in Jiban Krishna Das v. Jitendra Nath Das and others reported in [AIR 1949 Federal Court 64] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Veerathilingam and others v. Ramesh and others reported in [AIR 1990 SC 2201].

6. According to the first appellate Court, under Ex.A-6 Palanigounder has not reserved anything for his sons during their lifetime. The transfer of the property to the grandsons was immediate, after the death of the life-interest holder Subbathal. For the said reason, the division must be per capita. The plaintiffs together are entitled for 2/3 share and the defendant is entitled for 1/3 share.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the intention of the settle, the property has to be divided per stripes. The trial Court has rightly interpreted the document by harmonious reading of the deed in entirety. Whereas, the first appellate court by wrong application of precedent erred by holding that the property devolves per capita and not per stripes. Apart from challenging the first appellate court interpretation of Ex. A-6, the appellant also placed a new plea of enlargement of limited interest given to Subbathal, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

8. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that Ex. A-6 is a class gift. The 'class' is all the grandsons of Palanigounder and not the sons. Therefore, the property is to be divided per capita. The first appellate Court has rightly interpreted Ex. A-6 and had reversed the trial Court judgment. In so far the new plea of enlargement of life estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this issue has been settled long back by the Supre