Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.284 of 1985 and the defendants in O.S.No.381 of 1985, both suits on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti, are the respective appellants in the two second appeals. 2. It is not necessary to go into details leading to the filing of the second appeals. Suffice it to say that the decision in the appeals depends on the interpretation of a settlement deed marked as Ex.A.1 dated 30.7.1931 in the suits. The question is as to whether Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would be attracted in interpreting Ex.A.1? Ex.A.1 is a settlement deed executed by one Sadayandi @ Annamalai and his brother Poilon in favour of their sister Unnamalai Animal. As per the terms of the settlement deed, the settlee Unnamalai Ammal is, to enjoy the property during her lifetime without powers of alienation and after her lifetime, her issue will have to take the property absolutely and in case she died issueless, the property would revert to the brothers Sadayandi and Poilon. The appellant in SA 625 of 1989, who is the second appellant in SA 626 of 1989, claims title under a settlement deed, marked as Ex.A.3, bearing date 23.3.1977 from Unnamalai Ammal. The suit O.S.No.284 of 1985 was for a permanent injunction restraining two of the heirs of Poilon from interfering with the alleged possession of the appellant/plaintiff of the suit property. The other suit is by the sons and daughters of Poilon against Sadayandi’s heirs for partition and separate possession of the properties alleged to belong to the heirs of both the brothers. Ex.A.1 recites that as per the wish of their father to settle the property mentioned in the schedule thereunder the property was being settled on Unnamalai Ammal, that she was to enjoy the property without encumbering, the same and after her lifetime her off-spring to take the property absolutely and in case of the sister Unnamalai Ammal dying issueless, the property would revert to the brothers. The trial Court found that it was only a life estate given to Unnamalai Ammal and she had no pre-existing right in the property, subject matter of the settlement deed, and she having died issueless the property had to revert to the heirs of the brothers and that Section 14(1) is not attracted and only Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply. This was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 3. Mr.V.Venkatasamy, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, vehemently submitted that the intention of the father was to benefit his daughter, namely, Unnamalai Ammal and what was meant to be given to her under the settlement deed was an absolute estate and the brothers must be deemed to have given absolute estate and Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would not apply; and it must be deemed that she became entitled to the property absolutely. The learned counsel laid particular stress on the recitals in the settlement deed- The learned counsel wants the document to be interpreted as if the father, directed the sons to give the property absolutely. I fail to see how any such interpretation is possible from the terms of the deed. It is clear from the deed that what the brothers had done was to carry out the direction of the father and it should be taken that they had compiled with the direction of the father. If read from that point of view, there is absolutely no doubt that the sister got only a life estate and inasmuch as she died issueless, the property covered by the settlement deed reverted to the brothers. It is in evidence that the sister Unnamalai Animal was married at the time the settlement deed was executed by the brothers. No pre-existing right could be spelt out so that what was given under Ex.A.1 would get enlarged into an absolute estate. 4. No doubt, at the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed for decision: 1. Whether the Courts below have not committed an error of law in applying the provision of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the present case? 2. Whether the Courts below are correct in interpreting the document Ex.A.1 without seeing the intention on the parties as disclosed by the language put in Ex.A.1 settlement? 3. Whether the Courts below are correct in law in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs predecessor in title had no pre-existing right after giving a finding that her mother’s property was partitioned and retained by her brother? 4. Whether the Courts below are correct in allowing the suit for partition when admittedly the suit property is not in the hands of co-owners? 5. 4. Whether the Courts below are correct in allowing the suit for partition when admittedly the suit property is not in the hands of co-owners? 5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents relied on the following two decisions: 1. Kothi Satyanarayana v. Galla Sithayya, AIR 1987 SC 353 , and 2. Valluri Jaganmohini Seetharama Lakshmi v. Kopparthi Ramachandra Rao, AIR 1994 AP 284 . 6. In the first of the cases, properties were settled on the widow of brother with life interest. It was contended on behalf of the widow that she got proprietary rights after passing of the Hindu Succession Act. It was held by the Supreme Court that the settlement deed under which he claimed was an instrument contemplated under sub-sec(2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow and Section 14(1) was not attracted. 7. In the other decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a Division Bench of the. said Court held that when there was clear intention in a settlement deed, creating only limited interest, it could not be said that the settlee acquired an absolute right. It was held that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act alone would apply. 8. Mr.Venkatasamy, learned counsel for the appellants, also argued that the brothers had taken the property of the mother and that was the reason why the father asked the brothers to settle the property on the sister. No such pleading has been raised in the written statement nor the same substantiated in evidence. This contention by the learned counsel does not, therefore, merit any consideration. When once it is found that what the settlee got under the settlement deed was only a life interest and in case she died issueless, the property should revert to the brothers, then any dealings by her during her life time would cease to have any legal effect after her life time. Any claim made under any further settlement by Unnamalai Ammal would not confer any right on the subsequent settlee nor would any othi or any other encumbrance created by the original settlee or the subsequent settlee would have any effect on the revesting of the property on the brothers. Consequently all the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellants in both the second appeals and the second appeals are dismissed. Consequently all the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellants in both the second appeals and the second appeals are dismissed. No costs.