IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the rights of a female Hindu in property acquired in lieu of maintenance or at a partition.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 6/8/2018 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's and STs (POA) Act -VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 4/12/2012 in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu (for short "the trial Court").

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, in A.S.No.40 of 2013 (for short "the first appellate Court").

4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the plaintiff by name Pedda Ramanna and the husband of 1st defendant namely Chinna Ramanna are own brothers. Both Pedda Ramanna and Chinna Ramanna are no more. The mother of the plaintiff by name Naramma died on 17/3/2006. The plaintiff is sole legal heir of his parents. After the death of Chinna Ramanna, the 1st defendant has executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the plaintiff and his mother on 15/4/1953. After the death of 1st defendant the property devolved on the plaintiff. The 1st defendant had only limited right over the suit schedule property and vested rights in the property. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff and his mother vide OP No.93 of 1957 on the file of Sub Ordinate Judge, Ananthapuramu. At that time, the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.11, 000.00 from the plaintiff's mother and not pressed the said suit accepting the limited rights in her favour, as the entire amount could not be paid at a time a pronote, dtd. 12/2/1958, which was executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant. Subsequently, she discharged the said amount and made an endorsement of the said promissory note. Before filing of the suit, the 1st defendant executed a nominal deed in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in order to give trouble to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant has no right to sell the said property in favour of the 2nd to 4th defendants in view of the relinquishment deed. After coming to know about the alleged deed, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 12/2/1958. In spite of notice, the defendants are claiming untenable rights in the schedule property. The 1st defendant is still continuing in possession of the said property.

5. The defendants filed separate written statements and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the 1st defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period to the knowledge of everybody including the plaintiff and his mother. The defendant never executed relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 and not received amount of Rs.11, 000.00 and not pressed the suit and relinquished the suit scheduled properties. The alleged cash transaction under promissory note, dtd. 19/2/1958 and endorsement, dtd. 25/5/1958 was not that of the 1st defendant. The alleged relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 said to have been executed by Chinna Naramma W/o Chinna Ramudu in favour of plaintiff and his mother discloses that Chinna Naramma has given limited rights in A schedule properties which includes plaint schedule property in recognition of preexistence of maintenance. It is further stated that the 1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed, dtd. 22/1/2007 and delivered the possession of the property in their favour and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and their names were mutated in the revenue records also. It is further submitted that