THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.667 of 2011 September 8, 2011 Between: Mandapati Ramakrishna, S/o.Nookaraju And another ... Appellants And Mandapati Ramamohan, S/o.Nookaraju And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.667 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1086 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior CivilJudge, Kakinada. The first respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) filed the suit against the appellants, respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 4 and 5) and Mandapati Papayyamma (deceased third defendant) for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 13.3.2009. Aggrieved by the finding therein the defendants 1 and 2 filed appeal being A.S.No.32 of 2010. The impugned finding was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by which the present second appeal is filed. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the sons of Nookaraju and Suseela. Nookaraju purchased the suit schedule properties from Veerraju under registered sale deed in 1958. He also got certain other properties under a partition deed dated 26.8.1958. He renovated house replacing the old tiled house. Nookaraju executed registered Will dated 25.2.1995 giving life interest to Suseela and vested remainder to plaintiff and the first defendant. After his death on 18.12.1995, the plaintiff allegedly took possession of the suit schedule house as Suseela and the first defendant joined in Ashram for leading spiritual life. The defendants 3 and 4, who are related to the first defendant, threatened the plaintiff with dispossession. Therefore, the suit for injunction. The first defendant opposed the suit by filing written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4. He pleaded that after death of Nookaraju on 18.12.1995, their mother Suseela became absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Succession Act) and that the plaintiff is trying to create troubles to them by impleading defendants 2 to 4, who are not necessary parties. As noticed supra, the trial Court accepted the pleas and the evidence of the first defendant and dismissed the suit observing as under. As per the decision reported in Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike, (AIR 2006 SC 3282; 2006 (8) SCJ 555), their Lordships observed that Hindu Succession Act under Sections 14(1) and (2) enlargement of life estate into absolute estate. In the absence of any material to indicate that the property is given to female Hindu by gift or Will in lieu of her right of maintenance and when terms of document indicates her enjoyment of property only for life, she will have only limited interest therein and not absolute estate. As per the above principle of law the terms of Ex.A1 Will clearly indicates the mother of the plaintiff has got right to receive the rents during her life time only and she will got right to receive the rents during her life time only and she will have only limited interest over the plaint schedule property and not absolute estate by executing any gift settlement deeds or any other document by depriving the right of the plaint and 1st defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 (appellants herein) filed appeal aggrieved by the above observations. The learned appellate Court declines to set aside the finding/observations of the trial Court holding that under Ex.A1 Will, Nookaraju created life interest to Suseela and the same does not transform into absolute right. The finding is sound. As per Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the property possessed by a female Hindu acquired before or after the commencement of the said Act shall be held by her as full owner and not a limited owner. Under Section 14(2) of the Succession Act, if any property is given to a female Hindu by way of gift, Will or any other instrument, acquisition of such property is as per restriction if any contained in such instrument. In this case, Suseela can claim property only under Ex.A1 Will when the said document gives only life interest, she cannot claim absolute interest. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ September 8, 2011 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS