A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant is the appellant. First plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are sisters. The suit is filed for partition of the properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one share to the plaintiff. The suit property belonged to the father of these sisters who executed Ex. A-1 settlement deed dated 1-1-1943 in favour of his wife, Satyanarayanamma, giving her life estate and the vested remainder in favour of the said three daughters. Their father died in 1965 and the mother also died thereafter in the year 1971. To the suit filed initially, the first defendant had no objection for partition of the suit property. But, however, during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff and the second defendant died and thereafter the first defendant continued to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore, after the death of the two sisters, an additional written statement was filed contending that the life estate that was said to be given in favour of their mother under Ex. A. 1 got enlarged into an absolute estate which eventually devolved on the three sisters, and thereafter her two sisters having died, she alone, within the meaning of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", being the heir of her late father, is entitled to the entire property by inheritance. The second plaintiff is the husband of the first plaintiff and the fourth defendant is the husband of the second defendant. The third defendant is said to be the tenant.

( 2 ) THE twin questions which are fairly important, raised in this appeal are,----- (1) Whether under Ex. A-l the property that was settled by the father of the appellant in favour of the appellant s mother on 1-1-43 conferring life estate in her favour and the vested remainder in favour of the three daughters including the appellant herein, on the demise of the executant (father) in the year 1965 and thereafter of their mother in the year 1971, can be said to be enlarged into an absolute estate? If so, whether on the demise of the two sisters, viz. , the first plaintiff and the second defendant, the said property exclusively devolves on the first defendant-appellant by inheritance, within the meaning of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act? (2) Even otherwise, whether the property so settled under Ex. A-l could be said to be towards the maintenance of the executant s wife simpliciter and so is capable of creating pre-existing right and therefore is capable of being inherited by a female Hindu, within the menning of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act? these being mainly pure questions of law, facts do not require to be narrated.

( 3 ) TO adjudicate these questions, Ex. A-1 is to be looked into. The original of Ex. A-l is in Telugu and it reads thus : (Omitted being in Telugu),

( 4 ) THE salient question, therefore, is whether the property so settled under Ex. A-1 could be said to be the property exclusively given towards the maintenance of the executant s wife so that it could be said to enlarge into an absolute property of the settlee. Section 14 of the Act reads thus :"14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property (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 limited owner. Explanation : In this sub-section "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or device, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also aay such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document