A destitute widowed daughter has a right of maintenance against her brothers after the death of her father when she could not get sufficient provision from her deceased husband's family for her maintenance.

( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal the important questions that arise for our decision are: (i) whether a destitute widowed daughter has a right of maintenance against her brothers after the death of her father when she could not get sufficient provision from her deceased husband s family for her maintenance, and (ii) whether the property given to her for her maintenance for lifetime becomes an absolute estate under Section I4{1) or the limited interest does not enlarge and continues to be restricted estate under Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

( 2 ) THE material facts relevant for our present purpose are: Late Kota Ramayya had four sons, viz. (i) Venkata Subbayya, (ii) Raghavayya, (iii) China Venkayya (plaintiff) and (iv) Anjayya, and two daughters, viz. (i) Venkatasubbamma and (ii) Adi Lakshmamma. Adi Lakshmamma, the younger sister of the plaintiff, lost her husband at an younger age even before she joined her husband and she has no property from her husband s or father-in-law s side to depend upon for her. maintenance. Therefore, from the time of her widowhood she was living with her father and after his death with the brothers. The four brothers on 1-4-1939 entered into a partition agreement under Ex. A-6 and at about that time the suit property was given to Adi Lakshmamma to be enjoyed for her lifetime and possession was also delivered to her agreeing to execute a formal settlement deed in her favour. Accordingly on 21-7-1940 the four brothers executed the registered settlement deed, Ex. B-1, the material portion of which reads:"you are our sister. Your husband died long time back. As you have no source of living, you are being maintained by us. At the time we have decided to divide our proper ties, we have handed over to you possession of the house on 1-4-1939 with a view to enable you to lease out the house and live on the income arising therefrom for your life and to be responsible for making the necessary re pairs to the house and pay the revenue and municipal taxes payable thereon. "on 22-7-1940 the brothers also executed a registered partition deed, Ex. A-1, wherein after making a reference to this settlement under Ex. B-1, it is stated that the suit house settled shall be the joint family property of the brothers after the lifetime of Adi Lakshmamma.

( 3 ) IT is, thus, critical to notice that the settlement deed, Ex. B-1, is one executed in 1940 prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; and it is only in view of this the question of liability of the brothers to maintain their destitute widowed sister, as framed supra, has arisen for our decision. The need for making reference to the date of settlement deed, we should clarify, is that had it been subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 22 thereof would have clinched the issue.

( 4 ) NOW, reverting back to the facts, it is during 1973 Adi Lakshmamma executed Ex. B-4 will assenting absolute rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and bequeathed the suit property to defendants 1 and 2 sons of her brothers Venkata Subbayya and Raghayaiah respectively. Subsequently on 1-4-1974 Adi Lakshmamma died. Thereafter, China Venkayya one of the brothers filed the suit for partition and - separate possession of the suit house. The trial Court holding that the life-estate in the suit property settled under Ex. B-1 has enlarged into an absolute one under S. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that even otherwise also Ex. A-6 partition agreement in pursuance of which she was put in possession of the suit property did not provide for any prohibition against alienation, and that therefore the will Ex. B-4 was valid and binding on the plaintiff (sic), dismissed the suit. In the appeal preferred against that decree and judgment of the trial Court, the learned single Judge found that by the date of Ex, A-6 Adi Lakshmamma was married and therefore had no leg