The only question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeal is the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act, for short). The suit was laid by the 1st plaintiff seeking for a declaration of her title to the plaint 'B' schedule property, for recovery of possession of the same and other ancillary reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died. After the death of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff was brought on record as the legal representative of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs examined two witnesses in support of their claim. The defendants examined the 3rd defendant as the only witness on their behalf. The plaintiffs marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. The defendants in their turn exhibited Exs.B-1 to B-3. The suit was decreed. The defendants 3 and 4 unsuccessfully preferred appeal from the judgment. By the time the appeal came up for hearing, the 2nd plaintiff also died. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 7 in the appeal.

2. As the defendants 3 and 4 failed in the appeal, this second appeal was preferred by them assailing the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, which are not in controversy, are as follows:

(a) One Dasari Audemma had two daughters. Medisetty Venkata Subbamma, elder daughter of Audemma was the 1st plaintiff. Mareddy Subbarathnamma was the younger daughter of Audemma. Audemma purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property. She died in 1955 intestate. She left the 1st plaintiff Venkata Subbamma and the other daughter Subbarathnamma as her only children.

(b) The two sisters who inherited the plaint 'A' schedule property divided the same by effecting partition on 29-11-1956 through Ex.B-1 registration extract of the partition deed. In the said partition, the western portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property fell to the share of the 1st plaintiff. The eastern portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property fell to the share of the other daughter Subbarathnamma. It is the plaint 'B' schedule property. Subbarathnamma died in August, 1981, without any issue. Sankaraiah, husband of Subbarathnamma, executed a registered relinquishment deed registration extract of which is Ex.B-3, on 01-3-1983 in favour of the 1st defendant, who is his nephew being the son of his brother.

(c) Claiming that the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint 'B' schedule property as the surviving daughter of Audemma, the 1st plaintiff issued a notice to the husband of Venkata Subbamma that by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Act, the plaintiff became the owner of the plaint schedule property vide Ex.A-1. The 1st defendant issued a reply on 23-02-1983 through Ex.A-2 contending that Sankaraiah became the absolute owner of the plaint 'B' schedule property and that he executed Ex.B-3 relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Hence, the suit by the plaintiff.

4. As already pointed out, the trial court decreed the suit through judgment dated 21-9-1988 holding that in view of Section 15(2) of the Act, the 1st plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint 'B' schedule property and that the 2nd plaintiff consequently was entitled to the decree as sought for. The appellate court, through judgment dated 12-7-1995 affirmed the view of the trial court. Hence, the second appeal.

5. The question of law involved in this case is whether Section 15(2) of the Act applies to the case of the plaintiff or otherwise.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 15 of the Act may be quoted, which reads as under:

"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus:--(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and fath