Judgment

KASLIWAL

( 1 ) IN the above appeal and special leave petitions question has been raised about the ambit and scope of S. 14 (1 and 14 (2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Before adverting to the legal question, it would be proper to narrate in short the facts of each case.

( 2 ) THOTA Madhav Rao, the plaintiff filed a suit against Thota Manikyamma on the allegation that the plaintiffs father Yellamanda and the defendants husband late Venkata Subbayya were brothers. As the defendant and her husband had no issue they brought up the plaintiff as their foster son from the age of eight years and thereafter the plaintiff continued to live with them and was brought up treating him as their own son. Venkata Subbayya died on 14/01/1932 and before his death he executed a will bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his wife Smtthota Manikyatnma for her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit property as her absolute property. The defendant also executed a registered will on 26/10/1969 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of one Ramisetti Koteswar Rao. The plaintiff in these circumstances claimed absolute right in the suit properties after the lifetime of the defendant and challenged the right of the defendant to execute any will in respect of the suit properties. The defendant took the plea that her husband died issueless and intestate and did not execute any will at any time. Neither she nor her husband brought up the plaintiff as their son nor did they educate him. The defendant had brought up Ramisetti Koteswar Rao, who is her nephew, from his childhood and performed his marriage. On account of love and affection for him and his children, the defendant executed a registered will on 26/10/1969 bequeathing all her properties in his favour. The trial court held the will dated 14/01/1932 proved and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant preferred a second appeal in the High court. During the pendency of the second appeal in the High court the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High court by judgment dated 24/08/1979 allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit with costs throughout. The legal representatives of the plaintiff have come to this court by grant of special leave. The question involved is whether the life interest in the property acquired by Thota Manikyamma under the will executed by her husband and continued to be in her possession became her absolute property under S. 14 (1 of the Act.

( 3 ) ONE Meenammal is the wife of Ovi Reddiar. Married life between Ovi Reddiar and his wife was not happy and cordial. Ovi Reddiar executed a registered will Ex. A-4 dated 21/03/1921 bequeathing all his properties including the suit properties in favour of his mother and sister for their lifetime and thereafter in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar, the two sons of his sister and their issues. In the said will reference was made regarding the conduct of Meenammal in deserting him and in any event if she changed her mind and agreed to live under the protection of the legatees she was allowed to enjoy the income from Item I of the suit properties and that she should construct a house in item referred to in the will and to live there during her lifetime and after her death the said Item 1 and the house site with the houseshall go to the abovementioned Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar.

( 4 ) OVI Reddiar died in 1922 and thereafter the legatees under the will entered into possession of all the properties. Smt Meenammal put obstruction to the legatees in getting possession.

( 5 ) THERE was some criminal litigation between Smt Meenam