PALCHURI HANUMAYAMMA Vs. TADIKAMALLA KOTLINGAM D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal had a chequered career. Still it may not be necessary for us to trace the entire history of this litigation. Suffice it to say that the appellant herein filed the present original suit for partition of the suit schedule properties as a pauper in O. P. No. 91/78 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet. Her application to sue in forma pauperis having been dismissed, she paid the Court fee and the suit came to be re-registered as O. S. No. 221/79.

(2.) The claim of the appellant in the suit was that the suit schedule property belonged to her grandfather by name V. Subbaiah. He and his wife Ramamma had only 3 daughters. He bequeathed the suit property by a registered Will dated 19-3-1929 followed by a codicil dated 9-4-1929. According to the appellant, in the said Will he made provisions for maintenance of said Ramamma and after so providing he divided the property in favour of the 3 daughters which included the appellant's mother. Father the appellant states as per this Will, the said Ramamma was to manage the property allotted to her daughter during her life-time and after her life-time the properties identified as individual shares of the 3 daughters were to be inherited by the said daughters. It is stated that when the appellant was an infant,she lost her mother sometime in year 1994 and thereafter her grandmother Ramamma brought her up till she was married. It is the further case of the appellant that though Ramamma had only a right to manage the suit property during her life-time, she in collusion with the other two daughters of hers entered into a Settlement dated 14-3-1952 and followed by a Partition Deed dated 24-9-1955 whereby she, in accordance with the terms of the Will, transferred the property in favour of the 2 daughters, keeping the share belonging to the appellant's mother with herself with an intention of transferring the same in favour of the appellant later. But, as things would have it, at the instigation of the third daughter of Ramamma, the grandmother transferred appellants mother's share by way of a gift deed dated 11-1-1966 thereby depriving the appellant of all her rights in her mother's share of the property. It is also stated that Ramamma died on 9-10-1977.

(3.) The contesting defendants opposed the suit on the ground that by the Will and the Codicil referred to hereinabove, V. Subbaiah had put his wife Ramamma in possession of his entire property in lieu of her maintenance and the said Ramamma was all along in enjoyment of all the properties so gifted to her. Though it is true that by the said Will the testator had conferred only a life interest in the said property on Ramamma, in view of certain prevailing circumstances, the said Ramamma decided to execute settlement and partition deeds (reference to which has already been made), and by virtue of the said deeds, she partitioned certain properties between her two surviving daughters in equal shares and she had kept one-third share for herself. It is further contended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the right of Ramamma over the share retained by her became her absolute property and being the absolute owner of the said share she was entitled to deal with it in any manner she liked and it is in this view of the matter that Ramamma decided to gift the property retained by her to the third daughter, her husband and two sons. It was further contended that the appellant having lost her mother during the life-time of Ramamma, was not entitled to a share in the property of Subbaiah as also the appellant had no right to maintenance from the estate of V. Subbaiah since it was the obligation of her father to maintain her.