The estate acquired by a female Hindu under a compromise decree is a limited estate under Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not an absolute estate under Section 14 (1).

SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in this second appeal. He instituted the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to the plaint scheduled properties after the life-time of the 1st defendant and that the alienations made by the 1st defendant are not binding on him after the life-time of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant made several alienations and the defendants who are interested in those alienations are impleaded as parties to the suit. The 1st defendant is related to the plaintiff as the widow of his deceased brother, one Venkata Subbareddi. Both of them constituted a joint Hindu family and after the death of the other brother, the properties survived to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant instituted the suit O. S. 421 of 1945 claiming maintenance and a charge for the amount on the properties of the joint family. She claimed also a larger relief for partition. But that was denied. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29-6-1946. The ex parte decree was kater set aside and a decree on contest was passed. After that decree, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a compromise and they filed a compromise petition E. A. 428 of 1969 into Court under O. XXI, R. 2, Civil P. C. to enter full satisfaction of the decree on the ground that the matter was compromised between them. Under the compromise the 1st defendant, it is alleged, is given possession of some properties with a right of reverter to the plaintiff. Under the compromise the 1st defendant got half share in the family properties to enjoyed by her for her life and then to revert back to the plaintiff. As the 1st defendant made several alienations, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

( 2 ) THERE was first a compromise deed along with a petition to enter full satisfaction. The compromise was filed in Court. In this suit the question is whether the estate given to the 1st defendant under the compromise has become enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that what she got under the compromise was only a limited estate which falls within Section 14 (2) of the aforesaid Act. Unfortunately it was discovered that the parties have no copies of any of the proceedings which led to the final entering up of full satisfaction of the decree. Oral evidence was, therefore, allowed by the trial Court and that order was upheld by the appellate Court. A certified extract of the execution register is filed as Ex. A-9. It was ascertained that these records were not available in the Court. Both sides let in evidence firstly regarding the terms of the compromise and secondly regarding the proceedings which led up to entering up of full satisfaction. There was difference of opinion between the parties, however, regarding the nature and extent of the estate that was the conferred upon the 1st defendant under the terms of the compromise. While the plaintiffs case is that she was given only a limited estate with power of reverter to the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded that it is absolute title that was conferred upon the 1st defendant. As between both these versions the trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant acquired only a life estate under the compromise with a reverter back. That the compromise was filed in Court along with a petition to enter up full satisfaction is apparent from Ex. A-9 and it also shows that the Court ordered full satisfaction. In the light of these facts we may now consider whether the case falls under Section 14 (1) read with the explanation of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 or under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the same Act. if the case does not fall under Section 14 (2), the 1st defendant will be entitled to absolute estate under sub-section (1) of Section 14. The trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the case falls under Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, The appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document