A property acquired by a Hindu female under a compromise decree is governed by Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not Section 14(1).

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit related to a portion of a house. The house originally belonged to one Venkatarajalu Naidu and his son Manavala Naidu. Manavala Naidu predeceased his father leaving his widow Lakshmikanthammal. Venkatarayalu Naidu died on 7-11-1934, leaving behind him his widow Rajammal and daughter Kuppammal Rajammal died in 1938. The appellant is the son of Kuppammal. Lakshmikanthammal filed O.S. 1344 of 1940 against Kuppammal for her maintenance and other reliefs. The suit was compromised and a compromise decree was passed under which Lakshmikanthammal was given the right to enjoy the suit property during her lifetime in lieu of maintenance and residence. Parijathammal her daughter the first defendant was given the right to reside in the property till her marriage. Lakshmikanthammal subsequently died and Parijathammal continues to reside in the suit proprety and collect rents. The suit was, therefore, filed for declaration of the appellant's title and recovery of possession. Both the Courts below have held against the appellant.

2. The question for decision is, whether the property got under the compromise decree by Lakshmikanthammal falls under S. 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The lower appellate Court referred to the decision in Sasadhar Chandra v. Tarasundari, AIR 1962 Cal 438, wherein it was pointed out that a property is said to be acquired when, prior to the acquisition, the person acquiring it had no interest in the property and even in the case of a decree, if prior to the date of the decree, the Hindu female had title and all that the decree did was to declare the title of the female Hindu in the suit property, the female Hindu cannot be said to have acquired the property under the decree and her right was merely declared but where the acquisition made was in respect of the property in which the person had no interest previously sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 would apply. The lower appellate Court realised that strictly speaking Lakshmikanthammal cannot be said to have had a title to the property before the decree. But it thought that because she had a right to maintenance from the profits of the property, that amounted to a right in the property and on that basis held that Sec. 14(2) of the Act did not apply, but only S. 14(1) of the Act. I may straightway refer to the decision in Santhanam v. Subramania. ILR (1967) 1 Mad 68, where it was pointed out that the contention that where a female Hindu was given property in lieu of maintenance, it was merely declaratory of her pre-existing right cannot be accepted and that the right to maintenance could in no sense be described as a right to or in the property. It was further pointed out that the pre-existing right was not to the property obtained under the compromise decree, but only to a right to maintenance and the two rights were not identical and hence when in lieu of maintenance some of the properties of the joint family were obtained, it was a new acquisition, though in consideration of the right to maintenance.

3. In Sampath Kumari v. Lakshmiammal, ILR 1962 Mad 832 : (AIR 1963 Mad 50) a Bench of this Court held that the word acquired in sub-sec. (2) meant acquired for the first time. In Rangaswami v. Chinnammal, ILR (1964) 1 Mad 570 : (AIR 1964 Mad 387) another Bench of this Court took the view that a decree, which is merely declaratory of a pre-existing right, is not within the purview of sub-sec. (2). Jagadisan, J. in Guruswami Naicker v. Guruswami Naicker, S. A. No. 470 of 1961 (Mad) was also of the same view. He held that the word "acquired" in sub-sec. (2) indicated that it had a restricted meaning and that a property could be said to be acquired when prior to the acquisition, the person acquiring it had no interest in the property. In Kaliammal v. Andiammal, AIR 1965 Mad 451, one Kaliappa Gounder died leaving behind him his widow, his daughter, his mother, step-mother, his sister and his sister's