Various companytentions were raised in defence but it is unnecessary to go into them.
One Somasundra Udayar of Poon gavur village in Tanjavoor District.
The properties left behind by the deceased were inherited by his widow and they were in her possession when the Act came into force on June 17, 1956.
Thereafter on June 19, 1957 she settled 9 acres 16 cents of land and half share in a house inherited by her from her husband on her daughter Punithavalli Ammal, the appellant in this appeal.
This decision was upheld in appeal but in second appeal.
Appeal from the judgment and Decree dated September 3, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
On July 13, 1956, she adopted the plaintiff 1st respondent in this appeal.
139 of 1967.
of s. 14 1 of the Act Sellathachi became the full owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband.
died prior to 1937 leaving behind him his widow Sellathachi and two daughters Kappaimal and Punithavalli Ammal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The validity of this settlement deed was challenged by means of a suit by the adopted son even during the life time of Sellathachi.
Srinivasan, K. N. Balasubramanian and Lily Thomas, for respondent No.
1021 of 1960.
By virtue.
Datta, for the appellant.
The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding that question of law may number be stated.
8 9 5 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The question for decision in this appeal by cer tificate is whether the full ownership companyferred on a Hindu female under s. 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act to be hereinafter referred to as the Act is defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force.
The settlor who was impleaded as the 1st defendant to the action died soon after the institution of the suit.
