IMPORTANT POINT
The conclusion arived at by courts below that by the will the testator subaiah had bequeathed the suit properties in lieu of maintenance to his wife Ramanna with a life interest in the same and which right of maintenance got enlarged into an absolute estate u/s.14(1) of Hindu succcession Act, 1956 and thus she having become the absolute owner was entitled to gift the suit properties, therefore, the appellant could & not claim any right over the said property are correct and apex court found no reason to litter from the same.

Headnote:Hindu succession on Act, 1956-Section 14(1)-Enlargement of women s right of maintenance into absolute estate-Suit by appellant for partition of scheduled property-Based on will dated 19.3.1929 followed by a codicil dated 9.4.29 of appellant s grandfather V. Subhaiah-Subhaiah had his wife Ramanna and 3 daughters (which included appellants mother)-Nature of bequeath made by testator-Property given to Ramanna for her enjoyment for life in lieu of her maintenance-After the death of Ramanna testator desired to give property to 3 daughters in equal shares -Appellant, mother dying in 1944-Father alive-Ramanna though desired to give equally to all 3, due to death of appellant s mother, she could give specific shares to two and retained appellant mother s share for her maintenance-In the meanwhile 1956 Act came into force-She become owner of that retained share-Gifted at to 3rd daughter-Courts below holding after this appellant could not claim any right over the said property-Whether correct? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed-Appellant s contention based on various circumstances and statutory provisions rejected e.g. Section 9 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 119 of Indian Succession Act, 1925-Section 11 of C.P.C. 1908. (Paras 8 to 15)
       Held : We have heard the parties in extenso and, in our opinion, the entire issue innovated in this case depends upon the nature of bequeath made by the testator, to be gathered from the recitals of the Will dated 19.3.1929 as also the Codicil referred to herein above. A perusal of the Will shows that the testator had desired that after his death, Ramamma should take possession of all his movable and immovable properties and she should be the guardian of her minor daughters till they attain majority. It is relevant to note at this stage that the testator has not desired that the share in his property should be conveyed or transferred to his daughters on their attaining majority. On the contrary, the recital proceeds to say that Ramamma shall enjoy all the movables and immovable properties till her death without making alienations, and after her death his eldest daughter shall take two shares in Item No.1 of the schedule to the Will; her husband would take one share therein and second item in the schedule should be taken by the second daughter (appellant s mother) and, similarly, the third daughter was also provided for. The Will also provided for the family expenses to be incurred in the marriages of the daughters and the amounts to be paid to them at the time of their marriage. The recitals in the said Will also show at more than one place that the testator had desired that Ramamma should enjoy the property during her life-time and it is only after her death that he had desired that the property be divided and handed over to the three daughters in the manner stated therein.Thus, it is clear from the recitals that though the testator has not used the words in lieu of maintenance , he has certainly intended that the properties settled under the Will were left for the enjoyment of Ramamma during her life-time towards her maintenance. The fact that Ramamma was made a guardian of the minors would not in any manner deviate from the fact that the property under the Will was given to Ramamma for her enjoyment in lieu of her maintenance. The wording "My wife, Ramamma shall enjoy all my moveable and immoveable properties till her death" clearly shows that no arrangement was made by the testator for vesting of the properties in his daughters. It is only after the death of said Ramaimna that he had desired that the property should be divided equally amongst his three daughters but then, as things would have it, before the property could be said to have vested in the mother of the appellant, two circumstances intervened. Firstly, in the year 1944 itself the appellant s mother died, and secondly by virtue of enactment of Section 14(1) of the Act in the year 1956, the estate of Ramamma got enlarged making her, as the absolute owner of the property. The fact that Ramamma settled the properties almost in similar terms as those stated in the Will by the Settlement Deed of 1952 also, will not in any manner affect the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act and that part of the share retained by Ramamma which having continued to be in her possession as the property given to her in lieu of maintenance enlarged into her absolute estate on the coming into force of the 1956 Act. (Para 7)
       After rejecting 3 circumstances relied on by appellant and various statutory provisions.
       Held finally : For the reasons stated above, we arc in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below and we find no reason to differ from the same. Therefore, this appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-This appeal has had a chequered career. Still it may not be necessary for us to trace the entire history of this litigation. Suffice it to say that the appellant herein filed the present original suit for partition of the suit schedule properties as a pauper in O.P. No.91/78 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet. Her application to sue in forma pauperis having been dismissed, she paid the court fee and the suit came to be re-registered as O.S. No.221 /79.

2. The claim of the appellant in the suit was that the suit schedule property belonged to her grandfather by name V.Subbaiah. He and his wife Ramamma had only 3 daughters. He bequeathed the suit property by a registered Will dated 19.3.1929 followed by a codicil dated 9.4.1929. According to the appellant, in the said Will he made provisions for maintenance of said Ramamma and after so providing he divided the property in favour of the 3 daughters which included the appellant s mother. Further the appellant states as per this Will, the said Ramamma was to manage the property allotted to her daughters during her life-time and after her lifetime the properties identified as individual shares of the 3 daughters were to be inherited by the said daughters. It is stated that when the appellant was an infant, she lost her mother sometime in the year 1944 and thereafter her grandmother Ramamma brought her up till she was married. It is the further case of the appellant that though Ramamma had only a right to manage the suit property during her life-time, she in collusion with the other two daughters of hers entered into a Settlement dated 143.1952 and followed by a Partition Deed dated 24.9.1955 whereby she, in accordance with the terms of the Will transferred the property in favour of the 2 daughters, keeping the share belonging to the appellant s mother with herself with an intention of transferring the same in favour of the appellant later. But, as things would have it, at the instigation of the third daughter of Ramamma, the grandmother transferred appellants mother s share by way of a gift deed dated 11.1.1966 thereby depriving the appellant of all her rights in her mother s share of the property. It is also stated that Ramamma died on 9.10.1977.

3. The contesting defendants opposed the suit on the ground that by the Will and the Codicil referred to herein above, V. Subbaiah had put his wife Ramamma in possession of his entire property in lien of her maintenance and the said Ramamma was all along in enjoyment of all the properties so gifted to her. Though it is true that by the said Will the testator had conferred only a life interest in the said property on Rjamamma, in view of certain prevailing circumstances, the said Ramamma decided to execute settlement and partition deeds (reference to which has already been made), and by virtue of the said deeds, she partitioned certain properties between her two surviving daughters in equal shares and she had kept one-third share for herself. It is further contended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 (for short the Act ), the right of Ramamma over the share retained by her became her absolute property and being the absolute owner of the said share she was entilted to deal with in any manner she liked and it is in this view of the matter that Ramamma decided to gift the property retained by her to the third daughter, her husband and two sons. It was further contended that the appellant having lost her mother during the life-time of Ramamma, was not entitled to a share in the property of Subhaiab as also the appellant had no right to maintenance from the estate of V. Subbaiah since it was the obligation of her father to maintain her.

4. The said suit came to be tried by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, along with another connected suit being O.S. No.233/81 and by a judgment dated 31.12.1984 the said suit of the appellant came to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday