ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
Dr. Krothapalli Hari Prasada Rao Died per LRs A 2 amp 3 and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Akkineni Alivelu Manga Tayaru and Anr. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.303 of 2007 and Cross Objections No.8912 of 2007 in Appeal Suit No.303 of 2007
Decided on 10.1.2024
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Female Hindu succession – Any property inherited by a Female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve upon heirs of her husband, same has to be revert back to children of her husband – Expression ‘property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother’ occurring in this sub-clause must be given a restricted meaning consistent with absolute right of disposition of female owner – Special rule of succession applies only in case very property inherited by a female from her father or mother is still available at the time of her death, otherwise, rule does not apply – If property were to be followed by father’s heirs irrespective of change in identity and/or character of property it would give scope for unsavoury litigation and complications – Source from which she inherits property is always important and that would govern the situation. (Paras 28, 32 and 37)
Result: Appeal Suit dismissed.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant No.1 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 12.03.2007, in O.S. No.33 of 2001 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 in the said Suit. The plaintiffs filed cross objections for claiming B schedule property.
2. The Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for a) declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs to the person and property of Hymavathi and for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and followers from in any way interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and b) to direct the defendants 2 and 3 to ascertain the amounts payable on account of death of Hymavathi and to pay the said amount to the plaintiffs with interest and c) for costs.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.33 of 2001, are as under:—
(i) Plaintiffs are the daughters of late Korlipara Narasimha Rao through his first wife Kusuma Kumari. Kusuma Kumari died in the year 1965 when the plaintiffs were at tender age. It necessitated the plaintiffs’ father to bring home a mother to his children and married one Y.Hymavathi on 16.03.1968. By virtue of the marriage, Hindu custom and usage, the plaintiffs have become the children of Y.Hymavathi and vice versa. Smt Y.Hymavathi did not choose to have any more children. Plaintiffs, their father and Hymavathi lived together in one house. Hymavathi totally accepted the plaintiffs as her own daughters by heart, soul and deeds and gave all her love and affection and the plaintiffs reciprocated the same.
(ii) It is further stated that late Narasimha Rao died on 28.07.1980, intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and Hymavathi as his legal heirs. During his life time, he purchased some movable and immovable properties either in his own name or in the name of Hymavathi with the income derived from his salary, he also adorned Hymavathi with gold ornaments of his first wife.
(iii) It is further stated that Hymavathi received all retirement-cum-death benefits of late Narasimha Rao i.e., father of the plaintiffs, as the mother of the plaintiffs. Even after the death of Narasimha Rao, the plaintiffs and Hymavathi lived together till the marriages of the plaintiffs. Hymavathi herself performed the marriages of the plaintiffs as mother of the plaintiffs. Even after the plaintiffs’ marriage Hymavathi maintained the same relationship, love and affection towards the plaintiffs and she was frequently visiting and staying with plaintiffs.
(iv) Hymavathi worked as a Chemistry Lecturer in the second defendant college. She entered the names of the plaintiffs as her daughters in all the nominations wherever required and thereby bequeathing her retirement-cum-death benefits to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that late Hymavathi by virtue of her occupation, pre-occupation and employment was residing at Guntur. It seems that Hymavathi felt lonely after the marriages of the plaintiffs and she also fell sick. During which time i.e., 1996-97, she came in contact with the first defendant herein as an acquaintee. As the first defendant is a doctor, late Hymavathi used to take medical advice and treatment from him. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, first defendant made Hymavathi to believe that he is her well-wisher. He used to look after the petty affairs of the plaintiffs and Hymavathi such as payment of telephone bills, house tax on behalf of Hymavathi and the plaintiffs. On 26.10.2000 Hymavathi died due to cancer.
(v) Having come to know that Hymavathi is having properties and having come to know of her intention to give t
Emana Veeraraghavamma vs. Gudiseva Subbarao and Anr.
Bhagat Ram (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Teja Singh (dead) by L.Rs.
Arunachala Gounder (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Ponnusamy and others
Female Hindu succession – Source from which she inherits property is always important and that would govern the situation.
The property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband, as per Sec. 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family orig....
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
A party must prove joint ownership and the existence of a Kartha for partition claims; individual ownership negates claims of joint family property.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving property rights and titles, the limitations of permissive possession, and the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu becomes her absolute property, regardless of how it was acquired.
Hindu Law – property given to wife - Property had been given to the female Hindu in recognition of or in lieu of her right to maintenance, it was held that the situation fell within the ambit of subs....
Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.