A Hindu female who acquires property as maintenance has a limited interest in the property and cannot pass on an absolute interest to her heirs.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal raises two important questions of law as to (1) Whether making a provision for pocket expenses amounts to maintenance capable of enlarging into a fulfledged right under Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and (2) Whether the defendant in a suit is obliged to prove the Will even in the face of admission of the Will by the plaintiff in the plaint.

( 2 ) THE facts briefly stated, thus, are: ramchander Rao and Venugopal, Rao were consanguine brothers. Laxminarayana was the son of Ramachandar Rao and he was adopted by Venugopal Rao i. e. , his junior paternal uncle as the latter had no issues. As the consent of his wife was necessary, Venugopalrao sought the consent of his wife Seethamahalaxmi. Venugopalrao thought it fit to secure the interests of his wife at the time of adoption of Laxminarayana so at to ensure that she does not suffer for her day-to-day expenses. As such, he executed registered settlement deed dated 15-1-1941 and simultaneously a registered deed dated 15-1-1941 evidencing the adoption of Laxminarayana. Disputes arose in the family after the adopted boy entered his adoptive parents family and the same culminated into filing of O. S. No. 69 of 1942 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur seeking a declaration that adoption of Laxminarayana is not true and valid and as a counter-blast Laxminarayana filed O. S. No. 10 of 1943 on the file of the same court impleading both Venugopalrao and his adoptive mother Seethamahalaxmi claiming partition and separate possession of half share in the joint family properties. By common judgment dated 12-4-1944 , the Court held that adoption was valid by dismissing O. S. No. 69 of 1942, while decreeing the suit for partition in O. S. No. 10 of 1943. While passing a decree for partition the court left open the right of the 2nd defendant i. e. , Seethamahalaxmi to pursue her remedies in a separate suit for recovery of properties covered by settlement deed dated 15-1-1941 (Ex. Al) which comprises land of acs. 11. 00. Venugopal Rao preferred appeals in A. S. Nos. 270 and 280 of 1944 in Andhra High Court, but they too were dismissed. Consequently , specific items of properties were allotted to each of them i. e. . Venugopalrao and Laxminarayana, entitled them to enjoy the same exclusively in view of finality of partition decree.

( 3 ) SEETHAMAHALAXMI filed O. S. No. 29 of 1948 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narsapur for recovery of possession of an extent of Acs. 11. 00 of land covered by the settlement deed (Ex. Al) or in the alternative for the allotment of other properties equal in extent and value from out of the properties which fell to the shares of Venugopalrao and his adopted son Laxminarayana. The said suit was dismissed, aggrieved by which she preferred appeal in A. S. No. 777 of 1950 in the High Court of Andhra. While the appeal was pending in the High Court, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17-6-1956. Allowing the appeal of Seethamahalaxmi, by judgment dated 19-7-1956, the High Court ruled that Seethamahalaxmi was entitled to recover possession out of the properties allotted to Venugopalrao and his adopted son Laxminarayana of an extent equal to the value of Acs. 11. 00 cts. to be determined by the trial Court.

( 4 ) PURSUANT to the above decree, I. A. No. 1185 of 1957 was filed by Seethamalakshmi for passing a final degree and then the matter was compromised and a joint memo was filed on 24-4-1964 in the above LA. to the effect that the land mentioned in Schedule I in the suit shall be enjoined by Seethamahalaxmi for her life-time and accordingly a decree (Ex. A4) was passed in terms of compromise and the possession of the lands mentioned therein were handed over to her.

( 5 ) VENUGOPAL Rao had executed a registered Will dated 30-8-1957 (Ex. A5) bequeathing his properties to his wife Seethamahalaxmi. He died on 10-12-1967 and consequently, bequeathed properties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document