Nature of interest under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act.

The Chief Justice.-These two appeals arise out of the same suit in O.S. No. 12 of 1945 originally instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Bellary and thereafter transferred to the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary and numbered as O.S. No. 3 of 1947. A.S. No. 739 is by the plaintiffs and A.S. No. 758 by the first defendant. The suit was for partition of immoveable and moveable properties and connected reliefs. The first plaintiff is the widow of one Rao Bahadur Papayya Setty who died on 21st October, 1937. She was his second wife. The second plaintiff is his son and defendants 2 and 3 are his daughters by the first plaintiff. He had also by her two other daughters, namely, one Saras-watamma (P.W.3) married on the date of the institution of the suit and one Triveni who died before suit. By his first wife Papayya Setty had two sons, namely, the first defendant and one Seetharama Setty. After his death, the members of the family continued to be joint till the end of August, 1940, when Seetharama Setty left the family taking a quarter share of the family properties. On 28th August,. 1940, Seetharama Setty executed what is styled a deed of relinquishment and a release by way of partition in favour of the first defendant and the two plaintiffs (Exhibit P-1). Though styled as a deed of relinquishment, it is common ground that it was really in the nature of a family settlement. The terms of the settlement briefly were as follows: Seetharama Setty took towards his one-fourth share the properties described in Schedule A to the document and the properties described in Schedule B thereto were taken by the remaining three members of the family. These were left in the possession of the first defendant who was the manager of the family. Seetharama Setty relinquished all his rights to the B Schedule properties as well as to the jewels which were on the person of his sister-in-law, i.e., the wife of the first defendant and on the person of his stepmother the first plaintiff. He was declared to be not liable for the expenses of the marriages of his step-sisters, namely, the daughters of Papayya Setty by the first plaintiff and it was agreed that the first plaintiff should meet the expenses of their marriages. The only right which Seetharama Setty reserved to himself was the right which he may have after her lifetime in the share of the properties to which the first plaintiff was entitled. The document was signed also by the first plaintiff and the first defendant for himself and as guardian of his brother the second plaintiff. As some of the contentions of either side are based upon the language of the clauses of this deed, they will be set out later on. The first and second plaintiffs continued to remain in the family house along with the first defendant till September, 1944, though the relations between the first plaintiff and the first defendant were not very cordial for some time prior thereto. It is common ground that on or about 19th September, 1944, the first plaintiff left the family house with the second plaintiff and her unmarried daughters. Saraswatamma, her eldest daughter, who was married by the time and her husband continued to live in the family house for a few days thereafter, but they too left the house subsequently. On 21st September, 1944, the first plaintiff through her advocate issued two notices to the first defendant claiming partition of the family properties on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son. There was a reply by the first defendant’s advocate on the 30th September, 1944. The suit was instituted on the 24th February, 1944.

The plaintiffs claimed a two-third share of the moveable and immoveable properties set out in Schedules A to C to the plaint and the family business carried on by the first defendant. The first plaintiff claimed a third share therein absolutely. The plaintiffs prayed that a decree may be passed dividing all the moveables and immoveable properties shown in Sche