Decided on December 03,1969


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)The question debated in A.S.No. 523 of 1965 is, whether a document under which provision has been made for the maintenance of a Hindu woman attracts the operation of subsection (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Two brothers, Suryanarayana and Nageswarudu, held about 80 acres of wet land as joint family property. The elder brother Suryanarayana died in 1896 leaving no children but a widow Kutumbamma. Under Exhibit A-2, dated 27th July, 1898 provision was made for the maintenance of the widow by the surviving coparcener. The terms of this deed will be set out in detail later. The widow got into possession of the property pursuant to the deed and enjoyed it till her death on 13th November, 1959. She executed a will on 29th September, 1956, evidenced by Exhibit A-1 under which she purported to bequeath the land enjoyed by her under Exhibit A-2 to the plaintiff. It is on the face of this will that the plaintiff claims to be entitled to the property in question and he has laid this suit for recovery of possession from the defendants of whom the 2nd defendant is the tenant. The 1st defendant has obtained a conveyance of the right of reversion which, in terms of Exhibit A-2 became vested in the grandsons of Nageswarudu. The son of Nageswarudu has relinquished his interest in favour of his sons who conveyed their interest to the 1st defendant.
(2.)Shortly after the death of Kutumbamma, the plaintiff issued a notice to the tenant on 12th December, 1959. The 2nd defendant replied to the notice on 2nd January, 1960, expressing his willingness to pay the rent and deliver possession of the land to the party that establishes title in a Court of law. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition under the Andhra Tenancy Act against the 2nd defendant for eviction. In that application, the tenant pleaded that he would deliver possession to the party that establishes title in a Court of law. But, in O.S. No. 273 of 1960 instituted by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant pleaded that he the 1st defendant was already in possession of the land and that the suit was unjustly brought. As a result of the attitude taken by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 273 of 1960, the 1st defendant got into possession of the property. The suit is laid for recovery of possession against the two defendants, because the plaintiff's title and right to possession have been denied.
(3.)The 1st defendant in the main contesting defendant, and the plea put forward by him is that under Exhibit A-2 the widow Kutumbamma got only a restricted estate and that it was not capable of being enlarged into an absolute estate under sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. According to the 1st defendant, the property reverted to the grantor's heirs and he acquired title by a deed of conveyance, dated 9th May, 1960. The 2nd defendant pleaded that he paid the rent for 1959-60 on 2oth June, 1960 to the 1st defendant on the strength of the assurance of the 1st defendant that he would indemnify the tenant in the event of the hostile claim being upheld. He denied that he acted in collusion with the 1st defendant. He admits that he did not contest the suit brought by the 1st defendant and that the suit was decreed against him.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.