JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

The defeated plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, fourth appellant died and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were recognized as the legal representatives, they were already on record. The third respondent also died, since he already sold the property to the respondents 1 and 2, they are recognized as successor in interest.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.752 of 1992 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, for declaration of their title and for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction; The third defendant has filed another suit in O.S.No.39 of 1994, before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, to declare her right to the property. Therefore, a joint trial was conducted in both the suits, evidence was recorded. The suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.752 of 1992 was decreed and as against the same, the defendants 1 & 2 have filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.228 of 1997 before the learned II Additional District Court, Erode and the same was partly allowed and consequently, the above said suit was dismissed. While the suit filed by the third defendant was dismissed and as against the same, the third defendant has preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.158 of 1997 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order passed in A.S.No.228 of 1997, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal.

5. The above Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“Whether the interpretation of the Lower Appellate Court with respect to the recitals in Ex.A1 settlement deed that the life interest granted to the settlee would flower into absolute interest even in respect of a settlement deed executed in favour of a Muslim lady is correct or not?”

6. Admitted factual matrix of the case are as under :

(a). The suit property is originally belonged to one Sheik Dawood Sahib, who died intestate without issues. One Sarkari Moideen Shahib, who is the brother of the said Sheik Dawood Sahib, had two sons and two daughters viz., Mohamad Basha Sahib, Mohamad Habibullah Sahib, Kairunissa Bibi and Ayesha Bibi. Ayesha Bibi died in the year 1997, leaving behind, the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the said Ayesha Bibi, viz., the first plaintiff is the son, plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the daughters and the fourth plaintiff is the husband.

(b). The said Sheik Dawood Sahib, by a gift deed dated 26.11.1963, had settled the property to the sons and daughters of his brother, wherein, “A” schedule property was given to the said Ayesha Bibi by way of gift under Ex.A1/gift deed and third defendant Kairunissa Bibi was given only a life estate and on her death, the property will devolve upon the said Ayesha Bibi and there is further recital in the said gift deed/Ex.A1 that in the event of the said Ayesha Bibi, predeceasing the third defendant (viz., Kairunissa Bibi), property has to devolve upon the legal representatives of the said Ayesha Bibi namely, the plaintiffs/appellants herein.

(c). Based upon the above recital in Ex.A1/settlement deed, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up superstructure on the footing that since, the said Ayesa Bibi died in the year 1997, the life estate holder namely Kairunissa Bibi, who had sold the property to the defendants 1 and 2 herein and hence, the said sale deeds under Exs.A2 and A3, executed by the said Kairunissa Bibi are not valid in law and hence, prayed for relief as stated supra.

7. The sum and substance of the written statement filed before the Trial Court is that since Ayesha Bibi pre-deceased Kairunissa Bibi, life estate given to Kairunnissa Bibi has flowered into absolute right and hence, she can deal with the property, as such a