ORDER
One Palani Chetty was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. Palani Chetty had two wives. The first wife was Karungi and second wife was Saliammal. As far back on 27.2.1920, Palani Chetty executed a Will bequeathing schedule 'A' property to his first wife Karungi and the property in schedula 'B' was bequeathed to the second wife, Saliammal. In both the bequeaths, only life estate were granted in favour of both the wives. Subsequently, after the execution of the Will, Palani Chetty died. We are not concerned with the property bequeathed to Karungi, the first wife of Palani Chetty, but are concerned only with the property 'bequeathed to Saliammal contained in schedule 'B'. On 23.8.1974, Saliammal by a registered deed of settlement, settled the schedule 'B' property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequently, Saliammal died. In between time, the defendant appellants tried to trespass over the property settled in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession. The trial court was of the view that Saliammal having acquired limited estate in lieu of maintenance by virtue of the Will, dated 27.2.1920, became the full owner, of the said property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In that view of the matter, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved, the defendant-respondent preferred the first appeal. The first appellate court took the view that the case would fall under sub-section (2) of section 14, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent would not become the full owner of the property. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff-respondent, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court agreeing with the view taken by the trial court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court. It is against the said judgment, the defendant-appellants are in appeal before us. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the case would fall under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act and not under sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court suffers from legal infirmity and be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that this matter stands concluded by a number of decisions of this Court and the latest being in the case of Beni Bai v. Raghubir Prasad reported in JT 1999(2) SC 541, we are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In Beni Bai v. Raghubir Prasad (supra), it was held that sub-section (1) of section 14 would apply where a widow was given a limited right to property in recognition of her preexisting right to maintenance. In the present case, Saliammal was given a life estate by virtue of the Will dated 27.2.1920 in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .