JUDGMENT:- This second appeal is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.1145 of 1987 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent against the appellants and respondent No.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The 1st defendant is the wife of late Mallaiah. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are their daughters. Mallaiah died in or about the year 1947, by which time the plaintiff was in womb. The marriage of the eldest daughter, the 2nd defendant was performed by late Mallaiah during his lifetime. The marriage of 2nd daughter, i.e. 3rd defendant was performed after his death. The 2nd defendant and her husband were living in the house of the 1st defendant. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed, long after the death of Mallaiah. On account of the death of her husband, plaintiff lived for sometime along with her mother, the 1st defendant. However, due to differences, she started living separately. She filed the suit for partition, stating that in spite of repeated demands, her mother and eldest sister refused to accede to her request.

3. A common written-statement was filed, on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, i.e., the mother and eldest sister of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was the self-acquisition of Mallaiah, and that the husband of the 2nd defendant was taken as illatom son-inlaw. The husband of the 2nd defendant is said to have performed the marriage of the plaintiff by giving substantial dowry. It was pleaded that on death of Mallaiah, the property held by him, devolved upon defendants 1 and 2.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. It was pleaded that, she executed a Will dated 12.2.1988 in favour of the sons of the 2nd defendant, bequeathing the suit schedule property in their favour.

5. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement, supporting the plea of the plaintiff

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 28.10.1994, holding that the 1st defendant alone succeeded to the estate of Mallaiah, when he died in the year 1947, and thereafter her limited estate became enlarged into an absolute one, by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short, 'the Act'). The plaintiff filed A.S. No.4 of 1995 in the Court of 1II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was allowed through its judgment dated 16.12.1996, and a preliminary decree was passed in the suit. Hence, this second appeal.

7. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Mallaiah died much before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, and according to the Customary and Shastric Law, prevailing in the year 1947 in the area, the 1st defendant succeeded to the estate of the deceased, to the exclusion of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. He contends that even assuming that the succession of the 1st defendant, to the estate of Mallaiah, was limited in any manner, the same got enlarged by operation of Section 14 of the Act. He further submits that the trial Court applied the correct principles of Customary and Textual Law of Succession, and there was no basis for the lower Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

8. Sri Ghanshyam Das Mandhani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (for short 'the 1937 Act') was adopted in the erstwhile Hyderabad State, much after the death of Mallaiah and the succession to his estate has to take place according to the Textual and Customary Law. Placing reliance upon various paragraphs of Mayne's Hindu Law, and Principles of Dharmshastra, he contends that, in the absence of sons, the estate of a Hindu male, in this part of the country, was to devolve equally upon his widow, and daughters. He submits that the plea of adoption, or illatom of the husband of the 2nd defendant, was not at all established through cog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document