Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Vadrevu Annapurnamma - Appellant
Versus
Vadrevu Bhima Sankararao - Respondent
Decided On : 09-11-59
WILL - GENUINENESS - PROOF - INTERPRETATION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, SECTION 14 - APPLICATION TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY WILL - MEANING OF "POSSESSED" - WHETHER INCLUDES RIGHT TO POSSESS - ENTITLEMENT OF HINDU WIDOW TO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, widow of Bangarraju, claimed a share in the plaint properties under a will executed by her husband. The 1st defendant, Bangarraju's son, disputed the will and claimed a limited share in the joint family properties. The trial court found the will to be not genuine and granted the plaintiff a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint properties.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the will was genuine and validly executed. It interpreted Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that the expression "possessed" in the section includes a right to possess, even if there is no actual possession. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to absolute rights in the joint family property, even though she was not in actual possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by Bangarraju was genuine and validly executed? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to absolute rights in the joint family property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the will was genuine and validly executed based on the following reasons: - The will contained inherent indications of genuineness, such as the testator bequeathing a substantial part of his self-acquisitions to his son, the 1st defendant, despite their strained relationship. - The evidence of the attestors and the scribe of the will was found to be credible and reliable. - The differences between the testator's signatures on the will and on other documents were not significant enough to raise a prima facie inference that the signatures on the will were not genuine. 2. The High Court interpreted Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that the expression "possessed" in the section includes a right to possess, even if there is no actual possession. The court reasoned that: - The language of the section is not clear on the point, but the intention of the Legislature was to convert limited estates into full estates, thereby removing the disability of female heirs in Hindu Law. - A narrow interpretation of the section, requiring actual possession, would defeat the purpose of the Act and allow trespassers to deprive female Hindus of the benefits of the Act. - The plaintiff, as a Hindu widow, was entitled to absolute rights in the joint family property, even though she was not in actual possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent of granting a decree in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the plaint A schedule properties and partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint C schedule properties. The plaintiff was also granted absolute rights in the plaint A schedule properties and in the half share allotted to her in the plaint C schedule properties. The plaintiff was awarded costs in both courts against the 1st defendant.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajahrmundry dated 14-4-1953 in O. S. No. 3 of 1952 on the file of the said Court declaring the right of the plaintiff that she is entitled to a partition of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties into two equal shares and for recovery of possession of one such share.
( 2 ) THE suit was brought by the widow of late Bangarraju and the mother of the 1st defendant claiming to be entitled to the entire A schedule properties with absolute rights and to a half share in the plaint Of schedule properties and for possession thereof. This relief was based on a will said to have been executed by late Bangarraju on 26-2-1950 under which the testator bequeathed the entire A schedule properties with absolute rights to the plaintiff and a half share in the plaint C schedule properties with absolute rights to the plaintiff. In addition, the will, it is claimed, bequeathed the entire B schedule properties in favour of the 1st defendant. As an alternative to this prayer, the plaintiff claimed that in the event of the will not having been found to have been proved, for a partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint A, B and O schedule properties.
( 3 ) THE 1st defendant disputed the will on the ground that it was not genuine and that the signatures found therein were not those of his father late Bangarraju. He also claimed to have alienated a portion of the plaint C schedule properties while admitting the plaintiffs claim to a share in the plaint! A, B and C schedule properties but with a limited testate.
( 4 ) IT is claimed by the plaintiff that the plaint A and B schedule properties were the self-acquisitions of Bangarraju while G sch. properties were the joint family properties belonging to Bangarraju and the 1st defendant does not seriously dispute before rne that the properties described in A and B schedules of the plaint ate the self-acquisitions of Bangarraiu,
( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the will was not proved to have been executed by late Bangarraju and consequently granted the alternative prayer in the plaint by giving a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The plaintiff preferred this appeal claiming her rights under the will and also to the improved right which she acquired by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) basing on which the two petitions filed for amendment of the plaint had been allowed by this Court and the plaint had been permitted to be amended accordingly.
( 6 ) THE main point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the will (Exhibit A-l)l relied on by the plaintiff is genuine and is proved to have been validly executed. A perusal of Exhibits A-l shows that the testator while recounting therein the strained relations between himself and his son, the 1st defendant, nevertheless bequeathed Ac. 2. 69 cents in Avidi village bearing S. No. 188/2 described in plaint B schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant although the said property was his self-acquisition and he could do whatever he liked with it. Simultaneously he bequeathed almost an equal extent of land i. e. , Ac. 2. 61 cents in favour of the plaintiff, his wife, besides two small sites of the extent of 0. 03 cents and 0. 13 cents in Mahendra-vada village as well as the upstair house in the same village and described in the A schedule to the plaint.
( 7 ) AS regards the joint family properties now incorporated in the C schedule to the plaint, the testator gave a half share thereof to the plaintiff with absolute rights. Obviously the will did not take effect in respect of the plaint C schedule properties, as they constituted the joint Hindu family properties and by the time the will could come into operation, the doctrine of survivorship would also have operated and the proper
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
