JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been referred to this bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy J. , as raising an important question under S. 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in respect of which it is said there is a conflict authority. There are two decisions of this Court: one of a Bench consisting of Subba Rao, C. J. and Mohd. Ahmad Ansari, J. (as they then were) in Kameswarmma v. Subrahmanyam, (1959) 1 Andh WR 12 = (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 269) and the second of a Full Bench consisting of Chandra Reddy, C. J. , Srinivasachari and one of us (the present Chief Justice) in Ramamurthy v. Sitaramma, (1960) 2 Andh WR 352 = (AIR 1961 Andh Pra 131) (FB), which bear upon the question. Before we examine these cases, it is necessary to state briefly the facts which give rise to the question before us, viz. , whether the death of the deceased whose widow is claiming enhanced maintenance should have been after commencement of the Act in order to get the benefit of Section 25 ofsaid Act ? There were two brothers Venkateswarlu and Padmanabham. Venkateswarlu died in 1906 or 1907 leaving a widow, the plaintiff-appellant, and a will Ext. B-3 dated 22-9-1906. Padmanabham h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document