( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Two suits were tried together by the trial Court being O. S. No. 194 of 1997 and O. S. No. 294 of 1989. Suit being O. S. No. 194 of 1987 was filed for grant of letters of administration in favour of the 1st plaintiff authorizing him to administer the estate of the deceased Gogineni Chinnamayi. O. S. No. 294 of 1989 was filed for a declaration that all the plaint schedule properties, movable and immovable, belonging to the trust created by Gogineni Chinnamayi be given in possession to the plaintiff in accordance with a will and testament dt. 24. 7. 1983. Both the suits were tried together.

( 2 ) SHORN of the details, the facts relating to filing of both the suits are that one Gogoneni Chinnamayi who was the wife of late Venkattappaiah Chowdary died intestate. The property left behind by her became the bone of contention between her own relatives and the relatives of her husband. On the one hand the property was claimed by Venkattappaiah Chowdary s brother and his sister and on the other hand, the property was claimed by Chinnamayi s own brother s wife. Chinnamayi s brother s wife put up a will stating therein that Chinnamayi had created a trust and she had appointed trustees including her brother s wife and one K. Venkatramana. This will was not believed by the trial Court and Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly conceded that the will could not have been believed as no such will was ever produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the Court does not want to proceed with the appeal being CCCA No. 54 of 1994 and the decree in O. S. No. 294 of 1989 becomes final. The said appeal is accordingly dismissed.

( 3 ) NOW the only appeal which remains before us is CCCA No. 46 of 1994 which arises out of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 194 of 1987. This suit was filed by Chinnamayi s husband s brother and sister claiming the property of Chinnamayi on the basis of rights available to them in terms of the provisions of Hindu Successions Act, 1956 (for short "the Act" ). This is resisted by Chinnamayi s brother s wife who is the defendant and appellant herein. There is not much of dispute with regard to the facts or with regard to the relationship of the parties with the deceased Cinnamayi. The only question which will have to be decided by this Court is as to who is entitled to the properties of Chinnamayi in terms of Section 15 of the Act. In order to appreciate the controversy, Section 15 of the Act is reproduced below,"15. General rule of succession in the case of female Hindus:- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,-- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),__ (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. "

( 4 ) ON bare perusal of the section it becomes clear that as regards the females three types of estate are created by this provision with regard to succession of the female Hindus. First type is self-acquired or self-created property