Judgment

KASLIWAL

( 1 ) IN the above appeal and special leave petitions question has been raised about the ambit and scope of S. 14 (1 and 14 (2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Before adverting to the legal question, it would be proper to narrate in short the facts of each case.

( 2 ) THOTA Madhav Rao, the plaintiff filed a suit against Thota Manikyamma on the allegation that the plaintiffs father Yellamanda and the defendants husband late Venkata Subbayya were brothers. As the defendant and her husband had no issue they brought up the plaintiff as their foster son from the age of eight years and thereafter the plaintiff continued to live with them and was brought up treating him as their own son. Venkata Subbayya died on 14/01/1932 and before his death he executed a will bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his wife Smtthota Manikyatnma for her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit property as her absolute property. The