JUDGMENT

There was one Kannaiyan. He had four sons and three daughters.

They are i) Dakshinamoorthy, ii) Nadanam, iii) Anbazhagan, iv)Natarajan and the daughters were i) Kokilam, ii) Vasuki and iii)Lakshmi. The properties are self-acquisitions of Kannaiyan. Kannaiyan executed a “WILL” on 27.05.1992, giving a life estate to his wife Radha Ammal and absolute estates of specified properties divided under the “WILL” to his sons and his daughter Lakshmi and granddaughter through Nadanam, Tmt.Latha. He did not grant any properties to Kokilam and Vasuki on the footing that they had been well provided for by him during his life time.

2. Soon after execution of the “WILL”, Kannaiyan died on

03.07.1992 and his wife Radha Ammal took properties in exercise of her right as life estate holder under the “WILL”. Having taken the properties as a life estate holder, she executed a “WILL” on 30.11.2002 changing the manner of division that had been given by Kannaiyan in his “WILL” dated 27.05.1992. After having executed the “WILL” on 30.11.2002, Radha Ammal passed away on 22.06.2006. The suit in O.S.No. 50 of

2007 came to be filed on 03.01.2007 seeking for the following reliefs:

“a) for a declaration declaring that the Will executed by Radha Ammal dated 30.11.2002 is true and valid one and binding upon the Plaintiff and defendants and consequently directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties as allotted to the share of the plaintiff as per the Will; and b) for the costs for the suit.”

3. A written statement was presented to the plaint denying the execution, attestation and validation of the “WILL” executed by Radha Ammal and in any event, the defendants pleaded Radha Ammal did not have the right to change the device of the “WILL” executed by Kannaiyan.

4. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the Will dated 30.11.2002 executed by Radha Ammal was true and valid one?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief of declaration and for possession as prayed? 3) To what other relief, if any?

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1, one Kannan and Balaguru were examined as PW2 and PW3. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Kannaiyan's “WILL” had been marked as Ex.A4 and that of Radha Ammal as Ex.A3. The second defendant Anbalagan, the brother of the plaintiff, examined himself as DW1 and also examined the sister Lakshmi as witness on his side as DW2. He marked Exs.B1 to B31.

6. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court held that as Radha Ammal obtained the property as a life estate holder, the same bloomed into absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that Radha Ammal had the right to execute the “WILL” and change the device of the property that had been granted by Kannaiyan.

7. This Court had issued notice regarding admission on

30.04.2013. After service, Mr.A.Muthukumar entered appearance for the contesting respondent, namely the plaintiff.

8. Heard Mr.B.Jawahar for the appellant and Mr.A.Muthukumar for the contesting respondent. I heard the second appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the courts below were right in holding Radha Ammal who had been given a limited estate under Ex.A3 is entitled to claim the property as an absolute estate by virtue of Section

14(1) of Hindu Succession Act?”

9. The aforesaid facts would go to show that there is no dispute that the property is the absolute property of Kannaiyan, the father of parties before me. Kannaiyan, under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has the right to determine the manner in which his properties must devolve after his death. In exercise of that right, he had written a “WILL” disposing the properties in a manner which according to him best suited the interest of his family. Having succeeded to the estate, his wife had executed another “WILL” under Ex.A3 changing the manner in which the disposition was made by her husband, who is admittedly