JUDGMENT :

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S. No. 30 of 2011, by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru and in A.S. No. 18 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, have instituted a suit in O.S. No. 30 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession, wherein, the present appellants have been shown as the defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that originally the suit property was owned by one K.S. Rengaswamy Iyyangar, the elder brother of the plaintiffs' great grandfather K.S. Swamy Iyyangar. The said K.S. Rengaswamy Iyyangar had only two daughters, namely Padmasani and Ruckmani and he had no male issues. The said K.S. Rengaswamy Iyyangar in a sound and disposing state of mind had executed his last and Will and testament on 20.11.1961 and registered the same at the Sub-Registrar's Office at Thirukkattupalli. As per the terms of the said Will, the under mentioned suit property has to be enjoyed by the first daughter Padmasani for life and after her life, it has to be succeeded by the father of the plaintiff K.S. Rengaraj and his legal heirs. The said K.S. Rengaswamy Iyyangar died about 20 years back and the above said Will of K.S. Rengaswamy Iyyangar came into force and as per the terms of the said Will, Padmasani was enjoying the suit property during her life time as a life estate holder. The said Padmasani died in the year 2005. Hence, as per the terms of the last Will, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit property as the legal heirs of K.S. Rengaraj Iyyangar. The defendants have taken a sale deed from the abovesaid Padmasani Ammal on 17.02.2003 with respect to the suit property and have taken possession of the suit property from the said Padmasani Ammal. In the Will, dated 20.11.1961, the said Padmasani was given only a life estate over the suit property and she had no right of alienation over the suit property. These plaintiffs, being the only legal heirs of their father K.S. Rengarajan, had succeeded to the suit property as per the terms of the abovesaid Will.

4. The sale deed, dated 17.03.2003 was executed by Padmasani in favour of the defendants is not valid and beyond the lifetime of Padmasani, the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the suit property. After the death of Padmasani, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and explained them that the sale deed executed by Padmasani is not valid beyond the lifetime of the said Padmasani and requested them to surrender possession. But, the defendants did not give proper reply. Hence, the first plaintiff issued a legal notice on 29.06.2007, calling upon the defendants to surrender possession of the suit property. After receiving the notice, the defendants issued a false reply through their counsel. It is false to contend that the limited estate given to Padmasani riped into a full estate by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession act. As per the provisions of Section 14(2), Section 14(1) is not applicable to the bequeaths under the Will. Hence, the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the said suit property as per the terms of the Will, dated 20.01.1961. After the issue of reply notice, there was a Mediation in the Village in the presence of the Village elders. The plaintiffs explained them that the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the suit property. At the instance of the Village Panchayathars, the defendants agreed to vacate the suit property and hand over possession within one year and the Panchayathars also advised the plaintiffs to wait for one year. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have waited for an amicable settlement. But, even after the lapse of the time given by the Panchayathars, the defendants have not come forward to keep up their promise. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

5. The d