JUDGMENT (Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2001 made in A.S.No.64 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Bhavani reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2000 made in O.S.No.1001/1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1001 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Bhavani are the appellants herein. They are mother and daughter. The 1st and 2nd defendants in the said suit are daughter in law and son of the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd defendant was the husband of the 1st plaintiff. He died pending the suit. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant were recognized as his legal heirs. The 2nd appellant died pending the Second Appeal and the 3rd appellant and the 3rd respondent were brought on record as her legal heirs. 2. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the 1st plaintiff was the owner of the suit property without power of alienation, in view of a settlement deed dated 15.04.1991 executed by the 3rd defendant in her favour and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession. 3. In the plaint it had been stated that the property originally belonged to the 3rd defendant. The 1st plaintiff had filed O.S.No.162/1990 before the District Munsiff Court at Bhavani seeking maintenance for herself and for her daughter the 2nd plaintiff. It was stated that an oral division of the family properties of the 3rd defendant was done and in pursuant of such oral division, the 3rd defendant was allotted of the suit property. Since the suit for maintenance was filed, the 3rd defendant had executed a registered settlement deed dated 15.04.1991, by which the property mentioned therein has been settled to the 1st plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. Claiming that absolute right had accrued owing to the settlement deed, and seeking declaration of such right, the suit was filed. A written statement had been filed by the 2nd defendant, which had been adopted by the 1st defendant. It must be mentioned that even pending the suit, the 3rd defendant died. In the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that there was no family arrangement of partition as claimed by the plaintiffs. It must be mentioned that even pending the suit, the 3rd defendant died. In the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that there was no family arrangement of partition as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was also stated that sridhana had been given to the 2nd plaintiff long before the family arrangement. It was also denied that the 3rd defendant was in possession of the suit property and that, he had executed the settlement deed dated 15.04.1991 with consent and with knowledge that it was a settlement deed. It was also stated that the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be contemplated and the suit is not maintainable and that the suit should be dismissed. 4. A reply statement was however filed by the plaintiffs. It was stated that the claim of the defendants that the 3rd defendant had subsequently executed a relinquishment deed on 05.07.1993, is not true and the plaintiffs disputed execution of such document or even the validity of the said document. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the parties went to trial. The learned District Munsif, Bhavani had framed following issues for trial; (i) Whether the settlement deed dated 15.04.1991 is a valid document and is recognized in law? (ii) Whether the contentions that the plaintiffs were never in possession was true and correct? (iii) Whether the plaint had been properly framed by seeking the relief of only injunction without seeking the relief of declaration? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? (v) to what other reliefs. There was a further additional issue framed namely; (i) Whether the plaintiffs- claim of oral partition is true? A further additional issue was framed namely; (i) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 03.05.1993 is true, valid and binding. 6. The parties were invited to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence and during the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff Pavayammal examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The 2nd defendant Subramanian examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two other witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3. 7. 6. The parties were invited to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence and during the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff Pavayammal examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The 2nd defendant Subramanian examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two other witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3. 7. On the side of plaintiff Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24 were marked A.1, dated 24.03.1975 was the sale deed in favor of the 3rd defendant; Ex.A.2 was the settlement deed dated 15.04.1991, Ex.A.4 was Adangal and A.5 was Chitta and Exs.A6 to A.8 were land tax receipts. 8. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Ex.B.2 was the relinquishment deed executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant dated 05.07.1993. The Xerox copy was marked as Ex.B.3. 9. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence which had been adduced, the trial Court proceeded to examine Ex.A.2 namely the settlement deed, which had been marked as Ex.A.2, settlement deed dated 15.04.1991. The trial Court found as a fact that the claim oral partition was true and thereafter also found that the settlement deed had also been executed by the 3rd defendant and that subsequently, the 1st plaintiff had also mutated the revenue records and also obtained Adangal, Chitta and was also paying tax. It was also found that credible oral evidence had been adduced with respect to the oral partition and therefore with respect to the 1st issue that the settlement deed has been executed, consequent to the oral partition which has been established by way of acceptable evidence. In view of that particular finding, the trial Court proceeded to grant the declaratory relief with respect to the suit property and also granted injunction. 10. This judgment of the trial Court was challenged in appeal by the 1st and 2nd defendants. 11. The 1st Appellate Court, had framed only one point for consideration namely whether the appeal should be allowed or not. A specific point about the settlement deed has not been framed. The 1st Appellate Court observed that when the suit seeking for maintenance was pending, if the panchayat had taken place with respect to division of properties, then the opinions therein would have been reduced in writing. A specific point about the settlement deed has not been framed. The 1st Appellate Court observed that when the suit seeking for maintenance was pending, if the panchayat had taken place with respect to division of properties, then the opinions therein would have been reduced in writing. It was therefore found that since it was not so reduced in writing, there was no evidence to hold that there was an oral partition between the parties. It was therefore held that the 3rd defendant cannot settle the property claiming that it had been allotted to him under the oral partition and therefore interfered with the finding of the trial Court on that particular ground and allowed the Appeal suit and dismissed the Original suit. 12. Questioning that particular judgment, the plaintiffs had filed the present Second Appeal. Pending the Second Appeal, both the appellants died and a memo had been filed stating that the legal representatives of the 1st appellant / second plaintiff are already on record. Insofar as second appellant is concerned, one of the sons was added as third appellant and another son as third respondent. 13. The third respondent appears to have entered into a compromise with the second respondent who was the second defendant in the suit and a memo of compromise to that effect was presented before this Court but this Court cannot pass any order based on the said compromise since the parties have not appeared and, it is for the parties to present the same, before the trial Court, if at all they are to move the trial Court seeking to record the said compromise. 14. The second appeal had been admitted on the follwoing substantial questions of law; “(i) Whether the 1st appellant Court as a final Court of fact, can reverse the judgment of the trial Court without setting aside the findings given by the trial Court? (ii) When the trial Court had discussed each of the witnesses in detail and given a finding regard to the validity of a document, whether the 1st appellate Court can come to a different conclusion without rejecting the evidence of such witnesses?“ 15. Heard the learned counsels. 16. Ex.A.2 is a settlement deed dated 15.04.1991. The said settlement deed had been executed at a time when the 1st plaintiff had filed O.S.No.162/1992 seeking maintenance as against her husband and also as against her son. Heard the learned counsels. 16. Ex.A.2 is a settlement deed dated 15.04.1991. The said settlement deed had been executed at a time when the 1st plaintiff had filed O.S.No.162/1992 seeking maintenance as against her husband and also as against her son. They were both shown as third and second defendants in the suit. It is unfortunate that neither of the Courts below touched upon Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act is as follows; “14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.-In this sub-section, “ property “ includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.“ 17. If at all a property is settled granting a life interest to a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance, then such right blossoms into absolute ownership. Section 14(2) is mutually exclusive to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act and deals with a restricted right. 18. Here the very fact that O.S.No.162/1992 had been filed seeking maintenance to the appellants herein and thereafter the execution of settlement deed owing to such maintenance being sought very clearly establishes that the property which had been settled under the settlement deed, blossoms into absolute ownership of the appellants herein. 19. The right of the third defendant who executed the said settlement deed will have to be examined. 19. The right of the third defendant who executed the said settlement deed will have to be examined. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed in favour of the third defendant by which he acquired the said property. A reading of Ex.A.1 shows that the purchaser / vendee / third defendant / Ramasamy Gounder had parted with consideration towards the purchase of the property. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to the oral evidence that the property had been purchased out of the joint family income and therefore cannot be claimed to be the exclusive property of the third defendant. 21. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is as follows; “92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.-When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1).--Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. Proviso (2).--The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document. Proviso (3).--The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved. Proviso (4).--The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents. Proviso (5).--Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract. Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.“ 22. No amount of oral evidence can be adduced against the recitals in a written documents. When the written document specifically states that consideration has been paid by the vendee, the title devolves to the vendee alone and on nobody else. 23. The only person who could have raised a claim that the property was a joint family property was the second defendant. If he had contributed as co-sharer or co-parcener along with his father for purchase of the property, then he should have instituted a suit seeking right, title and a share in the property. He has not done so. 24. A reference was made about oral partition. Under the oral partition, enjoyment of the property alone was recognized. The title was never interfered with. Even in the written statement, it had been stated that Ramasamy Gounder was only granted right of enjoyment of the said property. The property was in the name of Ramasamy Gounder. He had every right to execute the settlement deed. In this instance, he had a necessity to execute a settlement deed owing to the suit for maintenance filed by the appellants herein, his own wife and his own daughter. 25. They had filed the suit in O.S.No.162/1992 before the District Munsif at Bhavani. Therefore the settlement deed was executed only in lieu of maintenance. 26. Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act directly is attracted and the property which has been so settled blossoms into absolute ownership of the appellants herein / plaintiffs in the suit. 27. Even though, this Court has recognized the right of the plaintiffs on the basis of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the substantial question of law also revolves around this particular aspect namely, whether the 1st Appellate Court could, have reversed the finding of the trial Court on the basis of the very same evidence which had been available without rejecting the evidence adduced by the witnesses. But the position of law is very clear. 28. But the position of law is very clear. 28. The position of law is enunciated in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Here Section 14(1) is attracted and attracted directly to the advantage of the appellants / plaintiffs. Therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered that the third defendant in the suit / Ramasamy Gounder had every right to execute the settlement deed and the rights granted under the settlement deed blossomed into absolute title to the 1st appellant and subsequently to the second appellant. 29. In view of that particular fact, the declaration of title as sought for by the appellants under the suit will necessarily have to be recognized. 30. Therefore, the Second Appeal stands allowed with costs and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.64/2000 is set aside, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.1001/1992 is restored and confirmed.