Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. In this case, as already pointed out that there is no recital in Ex.A1 that the properties were given to the said Mangaiammal in lieu of maintenance. Further, apart from the properties covered under Ex.A1- http://www.judis.nic.in settlement deed, the said J. Munisamy had some other properties also. So, if the said Mangaimmal wanted to claim maintenance, she could claim maintenance in respect of other properties of her husband. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the properties, which were given under Ex.A1, is not in lieu of maintenance. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, alone will apply and hence, the properties, which were given under Ex.A1, will not enlarge into an absolute property to the said Mangaiammal. So, the sale deed which was executed in favour of the first defendant (Ex.B3) will not bind the plaintiffs (reversioners).