IMPORTANT POINT
Hindu Women’s right to maintenance – Right of maintenance is sufficient for property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of HSA, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Karol J.)

1. Under challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 26th March 2009, rendered by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Appeal Suit No.1278 of 1990 filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908¹[Hereinafter “C.P.C.”] and Cross Objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22 respectively, which was directed against a judgment and decree dated 19th March 1990 passed in O.S. No.50 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

2. The Suit was filed by the respondents herein and was decreed in their favour. The appeal filed by the appellants herein before the High Court was dismissed, thereby the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed. In other words, the present is a case of the concurrent conclusions.

THE FACTUAL PRISM & LEGAL BACKGROUND

3. In a nutshell, the dispute pertains to the succession of property between two branches of the same family. At odds here are step-brothers. The appellantdefendant (now represented through LRs.) was the son of one Kallakuri Swamy from his union with one Smt. Veerabhadraamma, his second wife, and the respondent-plaintiffs are his sons through his marriage to his first wife.

3.1 The scheduled property, of which the respondent-plaintiffs sought an equal share in Ac. 3.55 cents of land comprising Ac. 0.54 cents in S. No.304/2, Ac. 0.92 cents in S.No.143/3, Ac. 0.24 cents in S.No.143/6, Ac. 1.80 cents in S.No.224/2 and Ac. 0.05 cents in S.No.244/6 situated in Teki, West Khandrika and Angara villages.

3.2 By way of partition deed dated 25th August 1933, Smt. Veerabhadramma was given the right to enjoy the above-said property, and it was stipulated therein that after her death, the respondent-plaintiffs and appellant-defendant would be entitled to half share each, i.e., 1.77½ Cents of land.

3.3 Smt. Veerabhadramma passed away on 6th February, 1973. In accordance with the partition deed described above, the property was divided amongst the two branches of successors of Kallakuri Swamy. A dispute, however, arose leading to Original Suit No.50 of 1984 being filed.

3.4 In the plaint, it has been alleged that the respondent-plaintiffs demanded partition. However, the same was repeatedly put off and evaded by the appellant-defendants. The latter has contended that Smt. Veerabhadramma by registered Will dated 30th December, 1968 bequeathed the scheduled properties to one of them (2nd defendant in the Original Suit). Such contention was denied, stating that her rights did not augment into absolute rights and that she had the right to enjoy the scheduled properties for life, as given under the registered partition deed.

3.5 The prayers made in the plaint are to the following effect :

a) For the partition of the Plaint A and B schedule properties after declaring the plaintiff's right to partition by passing a Preliminary Decree and for separation of the plaintiff's half share in the Plaint A schedule land and Plaint B schedule house property; and to pass a final decree accordingly and plaintiffs be put in separate possession of one such half share both in the plaint A schedule lands and B schedule house property;

b) For costs of the Suit; and

c) For all such other or further reliefs that his Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3.6 In the written statement, it has been submitted that the properties were given to Smt. Veerabhadramma taking into consideration her right of maintenance. She was in possession and enjoyment of the said property till her death in 1973. The rights so vested in Smt. Veerabhadramma were enlarged into absolute rights by application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956²[For short, ‘HSA, 1956’]. She then executed a Will granting enjoyment to the 2nd defendant, namely, Kallakuri Veera Raghavamma, for her life and vested the same in defendant Nos.3 to 7 and the husband of defendant No.8.

3.7 In the above facts, it was submitted that the respondent-plaintiffs cannot