VEERANGOUDA Vs. BASANGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this defendants' second appeal the only question of law that has been pressed into service by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants is as follows: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, exception to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provided under Sub-sec. (2) of that section is attracted?

(2.) The facts, very briefly stated are as follows: As far back as 1901 appellants' mother, by an arrangement which was not reduced to writing, was given possession of the suit schedule properties for her maintenance. Thereafter, the mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 1972 and the properties were taken over by the defendants. In the result, respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title and possession of the suit properties. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Totavva and daughter of the husband of the mother of the defendants who was the second wife of plaintiffs' grand father. The suit was decreed substantially on the question that there was no restriction imposed on the nature of the estate held by Thottavva. the mother of the plaintiffs on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter inferred to as 'the Act') in terms of the exception in sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 of the Act', and therefore, she had acquired an absolute interest before her death in 1972 and as a consequence her estate passed to her own heirs.

(3.) Mr. U. L. Narayanai Rap, learned counsel has not been able to point out how a restriction in writing was created on the type of life estate held by deceased Thotavva the mother of the plaintiffs under the so called arrangement of 1901 or some time thereafter. Section 14(1) and (2) read as follows: