Judgment : 1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the cause title of the plaint. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare their title to the suit properties. There are four items of suit properties situate in the village of Velliakkudi, Chidambaram Taluk. The suit properties originally belonged to one Murugesan Pillai. His wife is one Sivakami Ammal, Murugesan Pillai executed a deed of settlement on 21.6.1949 in favour of his wife Sivakami Ammal in respect of the suit items. There is no dispute that the suit properties were subject-matter of settlement and they are shown as A and B schedule in the settlement deed. The settlement deed was executed by Murugesan Pillai for the reason that he had to go outside his village often and he was not able to look after them. It is also stated in the deed of settlement that the parents of the settlee viz., Sivakami Ammal insisted that some provision should be made in favour of their daughter since Sivakami Ammal happened to be the wife and since the parents of Sivakami Ammal insisted that some support should be provided for the sertlee, the deed of settlement was executed settling A and B schedule properties in favour of the settlee. Under the terms of the settlement she was given the right to enjoy the properties without power of alienation and she was also required to maintain the settlor and the settlors mother one Balarnbal Aachi. Balambal Aachi was also given an additional right, to the effect that if she was not satisfied with the maintenance amount provided by the settlee viz., Sivakami Ammal, the settlors mother can have recourse to the income from the B Schedule property and the terms of the settlement also provided that after the life time of Balambai Aachi Sivakami Ammal, the settlee, can enjoy the properties as stated earlier and after her life time the properties will go to the male children of the settlor and settlee and if there are no male children then it will go to the female children of the settlor and settlee. The plaintiffs have come forward with the suit stating that the settlement deed was true, valid, accepted and acted upon; that Sivakami Ammal was put in possession of the property and she was enjoying the income from the suit property as per the terms of the settlement deed. According to the plaint averments, she was maintaining the settlor and his mother and there is no dispute that the mother of the settlor also died. The case of the plaintiffs was that after the life time of Sivakami Ammal the plaintiffs who are the sons of Murugesan Pillai and Sivakami Ammal are entitled to the suit properties absolutely as the settlee Sivakami Ammal was only given the power to enjoy the income from the properties during her life time and she Had no power to alienate the same. The plaintiffs further averred that Sivakami Ammal alienated the suit items in favour of the defendants and she has sold items 1 and 2 to the first defendant and item 3 to the second defendant, in so far as the fourth item is concerned she has sold the property to one Thangammai and the third defendant had purchased the fourth item in the schedule of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs the alienations were not true and valid and not supported by consideration. In any event the alienations would not bind the plaintiffs and they are entitled to a decree for declaration of the title to the suit properties in their favour. 2. A common written statement has been filed by the defendants and there is no dispute about the settlement deed. The case put forward by the defendants was that the settlement deed was a valid document, it is also slated that the husband of Sivakami Animal, the settlor of the suit properties was aware of the sale transactions and the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff also knew about the sale transactions and participated in the negotiations and they never questioned the right of Sivakami Ammal to sell the properties and the attested the documents of sale. The case of the defendants was that alter the sale of the properties Sivakami Ammal and Murugesan Pillai the parents of the plaintiffs have instigated the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration. The case of the defendants was that alter the sale of the properties Sivakami Ammal and Murugesan Pillai the parents of the plaintiffs have instigated the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration. It is not necessary to set out the other defence put forward by the defendants in defend as the case turns upon the interpretation of the terms of the settlement dated 21.6.1949 3. The trial court framed as many as five issues for trial of the suit and the first issue framed was whether under the provisions namely Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Sivakami Ammai can be regarded as an absolute owner of the suit propertiese The trial Judge has held that Sivakami Ammal acquired the properties under Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and she was not the absolute owner of the properties. The other issues framed in the suit were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The unsuccessful defendants preferred an appeal before the first appellate court and the Sub Judge, Chidambaram also confirmed the view of the trial judge that under the deed of settlement Sivakami Ammal was given only a limited interest and she took the properties under Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The other findings of the trial Judge have been confirmed by the first appellate court. The defendants have preferred the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration: “Whether the courts below were right in holding that the rights to property under the settlement deed Ex.A-1 would be governed by Sec. 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Acte” The answer to the question depends upon the true interpretation of the deed of settlement dated 21st June, 1949. I have already extracted the relevant portions in the settlement deed. The settlement deed was executed by the settlor since he was not able to look after the family as he has to be out of station of very often. The deed also states that the parents of the settlee insisted that some provision should be made for this settlee. With these objects the suit properties were settled in favour of the settlee namely Sivakami Ammal. Under the deed the settlee was entitled to enjoy the properties without the power of alienation. The deed also states that the parents of the settlee insisted that some provision should be made for this settlee. With these objects the suit properties were settled in favour of the settlee namely Sivakami Ammal. Under the deed the settlee was entitled to enjoy the properties without the power of alienation. Though there are other terms providing for maintenance of the settlor and settlors mother the obvious intention as seen from the deed was that the settlor intended to settle the properties in favour of Sivakami Ammal towards her maintenance. The intention is manifest from the recital referring to the insistence of the parents of the settlee that some support should be provided to Sivakami Ammal. The support means maintenance. The Tamil expression has a wider meaning and included the right of support including maintenance. As held by the Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Faquir Mohammed v. Abdul Khatoon . A.I.R. 1952 All. 127 the word ‘support’ has a wider meaning comprehending within itself the right of maintenance and the said word would include maintenance which are necessaries of life but also expenses for convenience. I therefore hold the suit properties were given in favour of the settlee Sivakami Ammal towards her maintenance and she was also put in possession and she was also enjoying the property as stated in the deed of settlement. As the properties were given to fhe settlee for her maintenance prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her rights over the settled properties would enlarge and she would become the absolute owner of the properties settled in her favour. Though there are restrictions found in the deed of settlement regarding the mode of enjoyment of the property, under the provision of Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act her right would enlarge and she would become the absolute owner of the properties settled in her favour. Therefore it cannot be said that the provision of Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply in the instant case and that since the properties were given for her maintenance she would become the absolute owner of the properties under Sec. 14(1) of ¡he Hindu Succession Act. Therefore it cannot be said that the provision of Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply in the instant case and that since the properties were given for her maintenance she would become the absolute owner of the properties under Sec. 14(1) of ¡he Hindu Succession Act. This position is settled by a number of decisions of the Apex Court in the case of V.Tulasamma v. V.Seshareddi V.Tulasamma v. V.Seshareddi V.Tulasamma v. V.Seshareddi , A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1944; (1977)2 S.C.C. 99 ; (1977)2 A.P.L.J. (S.C.J. 13and in the case of Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh , A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2251 held that where a Hindu wife gets lands in lieu of maintenance from her husband and if she enjoys the produce therefrom her rights would become absolute under Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. I there-fore hold that the properties were given in favour of Sivakami Ammal towards her maintenance and since the properties were settled for her maintenance, her rights in the properties would enlarge and she would become the absolute owner of the properties settled in her favour. No doubt, under the terms of the settlement she has to maintain her husband or the mother of the settlor till her life time but that conditions would not detract her limited right from blossoming of full and absolute right are the settled proper- ties by virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act I therefore hold that Sivakami Ammal become the absolute owner of the suit properties on the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 by virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the Act and once the case of the appellant is accepted that Sivakami Ammal became the absolute owner of the properties, the sale deed executed by her under Exs.B-1 to B-4 should consequently be regarded as valid and the title to the properties would pass in favour of the purchasers and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the as prayed for in the plaint. In the view above taken it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised and decided by the courts below. I therefore hold that both the courts were not correct in holding that Sivakami Ammal had only a limited interest in the suit properties The judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside. The Second Appeal is allowed. I therefore hold that both the courts were not correct in holding that Sivakami Ammal had only a limited interest in the suit properties The judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside. The Second Appeal is allowed. Since there has no representation on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.