The court established that property classified as stridhana under the Hindu Succession Act grants absolute ownership rights to female heirs, overriding previous limited rights.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C.T. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr R. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for R2 and perused the materials available on record.

2. The appellants are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.262 of 2002, for declaring their title over the suit property against the defendants; for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence, the defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case reads as follows:

The suit property was originally owned by one Duraisamy Mudaliar who had a son and two daughters viz., Sivaraj Mudaliar, Saraswathi Ammal and Kamakshi Ammal. In the year 1949, the said Duraisamy Mudaliar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of his daughter Saraswathi Ammal and he died in the year 1957. The said Saraswathi Ammal acquired the property and enjoyed the same. The recital of the deed would state that Saraswathy Ammal has only a limited right to enjoy the properties and after her lifetime, the title will vest on her sister's son (plaintiff herein). Saraswathy Ammal died without any issues on 23.10.2001. The first defendant is the brother's son of late Saraswathi Ammal who had performed the funeral ceremonies of Saraswathi Ammal and who was declared as a foster son of late Saraswathi Ammal. After the death of Saraswathi Ammal, the plaintiff wanted to take possession of the suit property, but, the defendants threatened the plaintiff not to enter the suit property.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows:

The first defendant is the adopted son of Saraswathi Ammal. The Saraswathi Ammal has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property independently. When the first defendant was 1½ years old, he was adopted by Saraswathi Ammal and her husband Rajamunusamy Mudaliar through Dathu Omam. From 1953 onwards, the first defendant was brought up by Saraswathi Ammal and her husband as their own son. The defendants 2 & 3 are the grandchildren of late Saraswathi Ammal. The Saraswathi Ammal along with her brother who was also the only son of Duraisamy Mudaliar executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of the defendants 2 & 3 on 20.06.1979. The first defendant as the father and natural guardian of the defendants 2 & 3 accepted the said Settlement Deed. The plaintiff does not have any right over the suit property.

5. Though the defendants 2 & 3 filed their separate written statement, they had adopted the written statement of the first defendant.

6. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses have been examined as PW.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, four witnesses have been examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked.

7. After the conclusion of the trial and on considering the materials available on record, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit and on the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgement of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence, the defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal. While admitting this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:

"1. Is the First Appellate court is right in coming to the conclusion that Section 14(2) of theHindu Succession Act, 1956 will only apply when Section 14(1) specifically states that Sreedhana prop