THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 109 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: 1. The defendants 2, 4 to 6 and 9 to 13 in O.S.No.165 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam are the appellants herein. 2. The suit is filed for recovery of the plaint schedule property. The allegations in the plaint goes to show that one, Veeraiah had two sons viz., Akkayya and Venkata Swamy through his first wife and one Venkayya, another son through his second wife. There was partition between Akkayya and his brothers and plaint schedule properties were allotted to the share of Akkayya. Akkayya had no children and Veeraiah is the son of step-brother of Akkayya. During his life time, Akkayya executed a registered will on 19-08-1935 in a sound and disposing state of mind conveying the schedule properties with life interest in favour of his wife, Manikyamma and vested remainder to Veeraiah and died on 26-08-1935. Manikyamma enjoyed the properties during her life time. Veeraiah died on 16-12-1949. The plaintiff claimed that Manikyamma died on 14-07-1999 and consequently the plaintiff has become entitled to the schedule property as the heir of Veeraiah. The defendants claimed that Manikyamma became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property after the death of her husband, Akkayya and the plaintiff or her predecessors cannot question the same. It was also pleaded that Manikyamma during her life-time executed two gift deeds in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 conveying the schedule properties. The defendants 4 and 5 claim to have purchased the properties under different sale deeds from the donees. The other defendants also claim to have purchased the properties. 3. On the basis of above pleadings, issues have been framed for trial and after considering the evidence on record, the court below held that the Will is true, but however held that the rights of Manikyamma do not enlarge and consequently the gift deeds executed by Manikyamma are not valid. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 5. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether Manikyamma became the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is legal and sustainable? 6. So far as the validity of the Will is concerned, the court below has accepted it as true though it was denied by the defendants. The lower court did accept the contention of the plaintiff that Manikyamma had no pre-existing right in the year 1935 and it was only in 1937 and in 1949 rights were created for the female with a right of maintenance. So far as the right of maintenance of a female Hindu is concerned, there is no dispute that the obligation is on the husband to provide maintenance to her. Evidently, as per the Will, the possession of Manikyamma is as a wife of the deceased Akkayya, and the maintenance was provided to her as she has got a right of maintenance and the husband is bound to provide the same. The lower court has erred in considering the rights of the parties as on the date of the registered Will i.e. 19-08- 1935. The decision in this case will rests on the date of enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, whereunder under Section 14(1) of the Act, if a female Hindu is possessed of the property, then said property rights will enlarge into absolute rights. It may be that by 1935, the lady has no right in the immovable properties owned by her husband, but by the date of Hindu Succession Act when the Act came into force, she has been in possession of the property in recognition of her right towards the maintenance which was specifically given by her husband. Therefore, the interpretation of the document by the court below is totally untenable. The law is now fairly settled that even if the document does not recite that the property is given to her towards maintenance, still the property conveyed to a Hindu woman by the husband can only be in recognition of her right for maintenance and consequently Section 14(1) of the Act squarely applies and Manikyamma becomes the owner of the property. If she becomes the owner of the property, then she has got every right to gift the property and the donees have got every right to alienate the same. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions, which support the above contentions. 1. Komireddy Venkata Narasamma v. Kondareddy Narasimha Murthy[1] 2. Vemuganti Venkata Kalyani v. Nyayapathi Padmavathamma and others [2] 3. Vidya v. Nand Ram alias Asoop Ram (dead) by LRs[3] 4. Lalsai v. Bodhan Ram and others[4] 8. In fact, there cannot be any dispute about the above propositions by virtue of the catena of judgments on this aspect. 9. Therefore, the finding of the court below in negativing the claim of the defendants that Manikyamma did not acquire absolute estate is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the suit has to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is to be allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs. 11. However, during the pendency of the suit, there seems to be compromise between the 1st appellant and also the legal representatives of the 1st respondent with regard to the enjoyment of the property and it is taken as part of the record. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 31.12.2012 skmr/pab THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO. 109 of 1993 Dated: 31-12-2012 SKMR/PAB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.109 of 1993 Dated: 31-12-2012 Between : Sanaka Padmavathamma and others …Appellants AND Batchu Sarvamma @ Sarva Lakshmamma (died) and others. …Respondents [1] 2005(6) ALD 152 [2] 2005(6) ALD 204 [3] 2001(1) ALD 66(SC) [4] AIR 2001 MADHYA PRADESH 159