Property given by father to widowed daughter under a settlement got enlarged.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed the above second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 1657 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam for declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction and in alternative for possession of the suit property.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was given by Sivalingam in favour of his widowed daughter Thangammal for her maintenance. She executed a Will under Ex.A3 dated 29.11.75 in favour of the plaintiff. Thangammal died. According to the plaintiff, the said Sivalingam had executed a settlement deed under Ex.A1, dated 23.2.1927 in favour of the said Thangammal, his widowed daughter for her maintenance. On that basis, the plaintiff has come forward with a plea that Thangammal's right is enlarged and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to absolute right in the property.

3. The defendants contested the suit contending inter-alia that Thangammal cannot claim any absolute right on the basis of the settlement deed and so the plaintiff also cannot claim any right on the basis of Ex.A3 Will executed by Thangammal.

4. TheTrial Court, without accepting the case of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. So the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.6 of 1985 on the file of the Sub court, Vridhachalam. Even the Lower Appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. So the appellant has filed the above second appeal.

5. At the timeof admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: -

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply to the settlement under Ex.A17?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right, in affirming the dismissal of the suits without recording any finding on the truth and genuineness ofEx.A3?"

6. Since the facts are not in dispute, I am inclined to decide only the legal issue involved in this case whether Thangammal’s right given under Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 2.3.1927 would be enlarged so as to enable her to execute a Will under Ex.A3, dated 29.11.1975 in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts below rejected the case of the plaintiff only on the ground that Thangammal is the daughter and her father Sivalingam has no obligation to maintain her and so the claim of the plaintiff that Thangammal's right would be enlarged in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be accepted.

1. Beforedealing with the said issue, it is beneficial to deal with the recital in Ex.A.1 itself. Ex.A1 is the settlement deed executed by Sivalingam in favour of Tangammal for her maintenance. In the said document it is stated as follows: -

7. From the above said document, the following facts are clear:-

1. Thangammal’s husband died.

2. She has been maintained from and out of joint family property.

3. To safeguard her interest to maintain herself after the death of her father Sivalingam, the said document has been executed settling the said property mentioned in the document.

8. Onthe basis of the above said facts, now we have to decide whether the plaintiff can take advantage of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to claim right in the suit property. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the father is having a legal obligation to support his destitute daughter and if any property is given while discharging such obligation, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply to such cases.

9. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a judgment reported in Kota Varaprasada Rao v. Kota China Venkaiah, A.I.R. 1992 A.P. 1, while dealing with the similar issue, held as follows: -

"16. The next important case on the subject is that of the Madras High Court in Venkatrazu v. Kotayya, 1912 (23 )MLJ 223. In this view of Ranede, J., in Bai Mangal's case, 1899 ILR 23 Bom 291 (supra) was dissented from by holding that there is a legal obligation on the father