The widow's right to a share in joint family properties under Section 8 of the Mysore Act and the limitations on the deceased father-in-law's ability to dispose of the property through a will.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal. One Chowdappa had a son, by name Chikka ramaiah. Chikka Ramaiah was married to the plaintiff Byyamma. Chowdappa's daughter by name Chickkavcnkatamma had a son Ramdev who is the 2nd defendant. the first defendant, smt. Akkayyamma is the widow of Chowdappa.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff claimed partition of hershare in the joint family properties described in the Schedule claiming that she had l/3rd share, being the widow of a prc-deccascd son. the defendants denied her claim and asserted that she had only a right to be maintained by 2nd defendant in view of the Will executed by latc chowdappa on 12-12-1949 bequeathing his interest in favour of 2nd defendant while casting an obligation upon him to maintain the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

( 3 ) A few facts that arc not in dispute may be noticed. Chowdappa and Muniyappa were brothers and they constituted a Joint Hindu family. the husband of the plaintiff, Chickka ramaiah son of Chowdappa died in the year 1940. By two release deeds dated 6-8-1943 and 14-3-1946 there was a partition between chowdappa and his brother. It is not disputed before me that the partition was effected through these two deeds eventhough they were described as release deeds. Chowdappa got separate possession of the ancestral properties that fell to his share. On 12-12-1949, Chowdappa executed a will bequeathing his entire interest in favour of his daughter's son Ramdev, the 2nd defendant. Chowdappa died in the year 1968. the plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in the joint family properties which was denied to her. She consequently, filed the instant suit claiming 1/3rd share in the joint family properties.

( 4 ) AS noticed above the defendants had idenied her claim to partition and stated that, under the Will executed by Chowdappa, the 2nd defendant was only required to maintain the plaintiff which he was ready to do. It is not necessary to refer to all the pleadings of the parlies, and the numerous submissions made by them before the Courls below.

( 5 ) THE learned Principal II Munsiff, Bangalore,who tried the suil, being O. S. No. 133/71, held that there was nothing on record to show that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties of Chowdappa and his deceased son. Consequently the plaintiff, as the widow of the pre-dcceascd son, had no right to a share in the properties under Section 8 of the Mysore Hindu law Women's Rights Act, 1933 ('mysore Act', for short ). He further held that the suit schedule properties belonged to the 2nd defendant by virtue of the Will dated 12-12-1949 executed by chowdappa. He also held that the properties given to Chowdappa by his brother Muniyappa were given for the benefit of the 2nd defendant, except Item No. 1 of the schedule. On such findings, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved, the plaintiff preferredan appeal, being Regular Appeal No. 139 of 1978, which came to be disposed of by the learned Principal civil Judge, Bangalore. the learned Civil judge held that the plaintiff could not get any share in the joint family properties in view of the provisions contained in Section 8 (1) (d) of the mysore Act; that the Will had been executed by chowdappa when he was in a sound disposing slate of mind; and, that under Section 30 of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, it was open to chowdappa to dispose of his interest in coparcenary property by a Will. Since he had done so, Ramdcv, the 2nd defendant acquired valid title to the property bequeathed to him under the Will.

( 7 ) IT is not disputed before me that Chowdappa and his brother constituted a joint Hindu family till there was a partition in the family. Under two release deeds Chowdappa had acquired separate possession of his share in the joint family properties upon partition. the properties which fell to his share were the subject-matter of the suit. It was, therefore, rightly not argued before me that the properties in the hands of Chowdappa were n