1. I have already perused the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother Venkataraman J. and although I entirely agree in the conclusions he has reached, I would like to add a few words of my own on the questions of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, counsel for the appellant.

2. Three main contentions were urged by him. The first related to the applicability of S.14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to this case. It consisted of two parts, the first part factual and the other part legal. The factual part consisted in the argument that the possession of the estate by the 2nd defendant amounted to alienation of the properties by the widows and consequently the widows should be held to be not in possession of the estate when alone the operation of S.14 (1) of the Act would be attracted. The argument has been dealt with fully by my learned brother and I do not propose to add anything more to what he has said. I agree with him that the possession of the estate, either moveable or immoveable, by the 2nd defendant does not amount to alienation of it by the widows, as he occupies the position of an agent of the widows or one of them.

3. The other aspect of the questi