JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Vaniyambadi, which was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and delivery of possession with regard to suit schedule property as listed in the plaint schedule pertaining to the tiled house with door No.39. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim and claimed right over the properties based on the sale deed executed by her mother Povunammal. On hearing both sides, the trial judge dismissed the suit. Against which, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of District Judge, Vellore and the first appellate judge partly allowed the suit by granting half share in the suit property. Aggrieved over that, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The suit property along with other property originally belongs to one Annamalai Pillai by ancestral as well as by self-acquisition. He had two wives viz., Sundarammal and Povunammal. Through the first wife Sundarammal, he got one son/plaintiff and one daughter Gnanasoundari. Through second wife, he got three daughters. During his life time, the said Annamalai Pillai executed a Will on 27.01.1954 in favour of his two wives. Thereafter, he died on 31.01.1954. As per the Will, 'B' schedule property was allotted to Povunammal with life interest and after her death, it should go absolutely to the plaintiff and the suit property forming part of 'B' schedule property of the said Will. Povunammal enjoyed till her life time until she died in the year of 2009. After her death, the defendant claimed right over the property as if her mother Povunammal executed a sale deed in her favour in the year 1998 itself. So, she refused to vacate the premises and claimed absolute right over the property. Immediately, the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant calling upon her to vacate the suit property and deliver vacant possession. But, she refused to vacate. Hence, the suit has been filed.

4. The contention of defendant is that she admits the relationship with plaintiff and the defendant, but she denied the plaintiff's claim over the property. At the time of execution of Will in the year of 1954, her mother Povunammal was pregnant and within 6 months, she delivered a male child and within two weeks, child died. So, as a legal heir of pre-deceased son Povunammal having half share in the 'B' schedule as well as 'A' schedule property. She would also submit that the limited right given to Povunammal through the Will in the year of 1954 was enlarged as per Sec.14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, thereby she became absolute owner of 'B' schedule property. So, she sold the property to the defendant in the year of 1998 for a valid consideration. From that, she became absolute owner of the property, thereby she denied the plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, there was a partition entered in the family between her mother, first wife and plaintiff in the year of 1999, in which the suit property was excluded, since because it is absolute property of her mother. Further, she also denied that 'B' schedule in the Will was divided between 1^st wife and 2^nd wife on 16.07.1999 and the alleged partition deed also suffered with corrections and errors, which is not a valid partition, thereby it would not affect the property given through the Will , thereby, she denied the plaintiff's claim.

5. The Trial Court framed issues and on considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the trial judge concludes that the limited interest to enjoy the house property is given under the concept of maintenance. So, if there is any provision for residence either by giving lumpsum money or by giving property, it also amount to pre-existing right to maintenance and the limited interest given in the said Will is enlarged as per provision of Sec.14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. Accordi