The judgment establishes the importance of proving customs and rights under Hindu law, particularly in relation to the partition of joint family properties and the widow's entitlement to maintenance and share on partition.

The 1st plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for partition of two items of properties and for allotment of two out of three shares to the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant is the son of the 2nd plaintiff and her deceased husband Kumaran. The suit-properties are joint family properties obtained by Kumaran as per Ext. B1 partition of the year 1097. Kumaran died in 1955 prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The parties to the suit are of Pandivannan Community governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law modified by custom. The plaintiffs pleaded a custom that an unmarried daughter is entitled to a share equal to that of a son in the joint family properties. The plaintiffs' claim two out of three shares on the basis that the two plaintiffs and the defendant are each entitled to 1/3 share in the joint family properties. The 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. It is not disputed that she had executed a deed of gift dated 31-3-1969 in favour of the 1st plaintiff settling all her rights on the suit properties on her. The defendant denies the custom pleaded and also denies the plaintiffs' right to any share in the suit properties.

2. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the custom under which an unmarried daughter is entitled to a share in the joint family properties. The courts below have also found that the 2nd plaintiff, the widow of Kumaran is not entitled to any share in the joint family properties.

3. On the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the custom as per which an unmarried daughter is entitled to a share in the joint family properties, the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to any share in her own right.

4. The only other question for consideration in this Second Appeal is as to whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to a share in the joint family properties. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to a share on partition, and such share as she gets on partition is her absolute property on account of her preexisting right to maintenance enlarged to an absolute title to property by virtue of sub-sec.(1) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The right of a Hindu widow is only to be maintained from out of the income of the joint family properties. She will have a charge on the property itself. But that does not mean she has a right to possession of joint family property nor is she a coparcener entitled to claim joint possession along with the other members. Under sub-sec.(1) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner. The 2nd plaintiff had no possession of joint family properties which would entitle her to claim full ownership under sub-sec.(1) of S.14 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. (AIR 1977 SC 1944), in support of the argument that a widow's right to maintenance is a pre-existing right to property maturing to a full estate by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec.(1) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the case before the Supreme Court, the widow was in possession of property allotted to her in lieu of her maintenance as per the terms of a compromise entered into between the parties at the stage of execution of a decree for maintenance. Even though the compromise provided for only a limited interest in the property in the possession of the widow, the Supreme Court held that sub-sec.(2) of S.14 has no application for the reason that the possession of property by the widow as a limited owner is in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance on the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into force and it is sub-sec.(1) of S. 14 of the Act th