P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is brought by the first defendant against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 61 of 1976. The first respondent being minor, represented by his maternal uncle Chunduri Venkaiah filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule property and also for declaration that he is entitled to recover possession of the other half after the life time of his mother, the second defendant together with future profits.

( 2 ) ONE Chadalavada Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, a Medical Practitioner at ongole purchased vacant site at Ongole in the year 1958 and 1961 and constructed a terraced house thereon which is the plaint schedule property. He executed a settlement deed dated 28-5-1966 giving a half share in the said house to his son the plaintiff with absolute rights and the other half to his wife, the second respondent for life and the vested remainder to the plaintiff. Anjaneyulu died on 8-6-1968. The second respondent, his widow was managing the property of the minor plaintiff. After the death of Anjaneyulu some of his creditors obtained decrees against his estate. As the Co-operative building Society brought pressure upon the second respondent, she sold the said property for a low price of Rs. 15,000/- while it8 value at that time was rs. 50,000/ -. As the second respondent neglected the plaintiff, his maternal uncle took him under his care and protection. As the sale of the minor s property by the second respondent is illegal, this suit is filed.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked Exs. A-1 to A-3; while the respondent (defendant) Nos. 1 and 3 examined 8 witnesses including themselves as D. Ws. l and 8 respectively, apart from marking Exs. B-1 to b-90. The trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms:-"in view of my foregoing findings, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition and immediate possession of his half share in the suit property and a declaration that he is entitled to recover possession of the other half share after the life time of the second defendant on condition of his restoring to the first defendant the sale consideration of rs. 15,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. On such payment being made, the first defendant shall put the plaintiff and the second defendant in possession of the suit property. Hence the appeal by the first defendant.

( 4 ) SRI C. Poornaiah, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the half share of the house gifted by late anjaneyulu to the second respondent gets enlarged under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, she becomes an absolute owner. As such, the alienation made in respect of her half share cannot be questioned by the minor. He also further contended that the second respondent being the natural guardian is entitled to alienate the minor s half share since it is a joint family property in the hands of the minor for legal necessities or for the benefit of the estate.

( 5 ) UNDER Ex. A-1 settlement deed dated 28-5-1966 late Anjaneyulu gifted half of the plaint schedule property to the minor plaintiff with absolute rights and the other half to his wife, the second defendant for enjoyment during her life time and vested remainder to the minor plaintiff absolutely. It is stated that the said settlement deed was executed purely out of love and affection. Therefore in such circumstances, the first question for consideration is whether the property in the hands of the widow would enlarge into a full estate, or she has a mere right to enjoy during her life time as stipulated in the settlement deed.

( 6 ) SECTION 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - hereinafter called the act may be usefully extracted:" 14 (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a lim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document