(1.) The principal question that was debted in these two appeals is whether a female Hindu, in order to acquire the benefit under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, should have been in possession of the property at the time of the commencement of that act, or whether that benefit would accrue to her even if the came into possession of the property after such commencement. This and other questions arose in the suit originally filed by the first plaintiff, since dead, and later continued by her heir and husband the second plaintiff, for declaration of her title to the plaint A schedule property or in the alternative for partition of the B Schedule properties into two shares and for delivery of one such share along with mesne profits. There were some other reliefs that were sought in the suit like delivery of two pairs of gold bangles, one gold waist belt and G Schedule moveables valued at rs. 3,065. The lower Court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs substantially and only passed a preliminary decree for partition of the non-a-agricultural properties in the plaint B Schedule into two equal par s and for possession of one such share wi h proportionate costs. The suit was dismiss d in so far as it related to o her reliefs and the defendants were directed to b ar their own costs. Since the second plantiff substantially lost the suit he came up to this Court in a. S. No. 58 of 1970. Defendant No. 1 who was denied the costs, preferred a. S. No. 264 of 1970 in respect thereof.
(2.) The material averments in the pleadings are: The first plaintiff's father, puttayya, the first defendant and sivalingayya are the sons of Gopalakrishnayya, who died on 7th September, 1948. Father Pattayya pre-deceased his own father Gopalakrishnayya. There is, however, a controversy in regard to the date of his death. The plaintiffs would have it that Panayya died on 30th of december, 1946, but the first defendant maintains that he had died on 5th august, 1945. The first defendant has only one son and no daughters and so he brought up the first plaintiff. It is common case that one of the three brothers, i. e. , Sivalingayya got divided; the plaintiffs say that his division was in 1949, but the defendant states that it was in 1946. Lakshminarasamma was the widow of Pattayya and the mother of the first plaintiff. The Plaintiffs allege that since Pattayya died on 30th of december, 1946, i. e. , after the Hindu women's Rights to Property Act of 1937 had come to be applied to agricultural lands in the Madras State, the undivided share of Pattayya devolved on the widow, lakshminarasamma. Consequently, there was a partition between Lakshminarasamma and the first defendant on 30th of May, 1960, wherein A Schedule properties were allotted to the former, lakshminarasamma, however, died on 28 h of August, 1961. Even earlier, to be exact, on 9th April, 1958, the first plaintiff Was married to the second plaintiff and at her marriage the first defendant announced as gift to her ac. 1-00 of dry land. In furtherance of this announcement, he executed a deed of gift. Exhibit A-4 dated 31st May, 1960, in respect of 69 cents and also, executed a promissory note in respect of the value of the balance of the land. After Lakshminarasamma's death the two plaintiffs entered upon possession of A schedule lands and began to pay land revenue in respect of them. Sivalingayya advised them to lease out the lands to the first defendant to which the plaintiffs did not agree. The second defendant lessee of item (1) of A Schedule and the third defendant is lessee of item (3). When the plaintiffs refused to lease out the lands to him the first defendant got enraged and trespassed into the lands in 1962. Thereupon the suit was filed by the first plaintiff in December, 1962. The plaintiffs also alleged that two pairs of gold bangles, one gold waist belt and c Schedule moveables of the value of rs. 3,065 went into the possession of the first defendant and they were entitled to get them back from him.
(3.) The first defendant, who is the paternal uncle of the first plaintiffs was the main contesting defendant. He averred that Pattayya, the father of the first plaintiff died on 5th August, 1945. Since the death occurred before 1937 act came to be applied to agricultural lands, no rights in agricultural properties devolved on the widow Lakshminarasamma. She had only a right to maintenance. The other brother Sivalingayya got divided not in 1949 as the plaintiffs alleged but in 1946. There was no partition between Lakshminarasamma and himself either in 1960 or at any time. Exhibit A-3, which is the alleged partition deed dated 30th of may, 1960 is a forgery In any case he came to have full rights in all the properties by virtue of adverse possession he admitted having executed Exhibit a-4 but seated that he did not know is contends since, it w s got executed at the instance of the plaintiffs Items 4 to 8 of the B Schedule are his self acquired properties and in any ev nt are not available for partition. His possession of the gold oranaments and the C Schedule moveables was denied;