IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.521 of 1999 BETWEEN Pinipe Saheb (died) and others. …APPELLANTS AND Pinipe Kondamma alias Balewari. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: MR. K.V. SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K. CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the defendants, who are unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The respondent herein, who is daughter-in-law of the original first defendant and sister-in-law of defendants 2 to 4, filed O.S.No.116 of 1989 seeking maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) at Rs.3,000/- per annum together with the charge on the schedule property. 2. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff alleging that her husband Lakshmana Rao, who was also one of the sons of the original first defendant died leaving behind her, as widow, and minor daughter. The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, claimed that she has no means to maintain herself working as a coolie and sought maintenance from the original first defendant, who was her father-in-law, who had substantial properties, as described in the plaint on which a charge was sought. The first defendant died pending the suit and defendants 2 and 4, who are his other sons, already on record continued the suit. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the properties on which charge is sought for by the plaintiff are self-acquired properties of the first defendant and that he himself is unable to maintain him and his family and that the plaintiff is residing with her daughter and son-in-law and does not require any maintenance. 3. Both sides laid evidence in support of their respective case and so far as the plaintiff is concerned, she examined herself as P.W.1 and four other witnesses whereas the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1; the first defendant as D.W.2; the fourth defendant as D.W.3 and third party witness was examined as D.W.4. The plaintiff, inter alia, filed Ex.A1 – pre- suit notice and Ex.A2 reply apart from revenue records viz. adangals and pahanies – Exs.A3 to A9 showing several agricultural lands belonging to the first defendant. The defendants also alleged that the first defendant had left a Will and subsequent to his death the defendants 2 to 4 as legatees under the said will – Exs.B1 and B2 have succeeded to the properties. 4. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the first defendant had sufficient properties, as are evidenced by the revenue record and adangals produced by the plaintiff and is bound to maintain the respondent/plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the suit by granting charge as prayed for. On an appeal, being A.S.No.14 of 1995, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the said decree but with a modification that though the plaintiff had sought for charge on Ac.1.70 cents, the same was confirmed notwithstanding that the first defendant was found owning much more land than Ac.1.70 cents. The charge, therefore, was confined to Ac.1.70 cents as prayed for by the respondent/plaintiff. Against the said appellate decree, this appeal is preferred by the defendants and the same was admitted by this Court on 05.04.2002 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether, there was any legal obligation cast on the deceased first defendant to provide maintenance to respondent/plaintiff?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has very strenuously contended that both the Courts below have not appreciated Section 19 of the Act and particularly clause 1(b) thereof and have not considered as to whether the respondent/plaintiff can straightaway seek maintenance from her father-in- law in the absence of claiming the same from her daughter and son-in-law, as admittedly, she is living with them. Learned counsel also contended that the self-acquired properties of the first defendant cannot be subjected to charge under the maintenance decree and both the Courts below have committed error in decreeing the suit together with the charge to the extent of Ac.1.70 cents now in the hands of defendants 2 to 4 under Exs.B1 and B2. Learned counsel also stated that the daughter of the respondent/plaintiff has now filed a suit for partition being O.S.No.21 of 2005 before the Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram and the said suit is pending. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the findings of both the Courts below. It is noteworthy that the contentions now raised were not raised in the written statement. Moreover, the grounds 3 and 4 raised in this second appeal are to the effect that neither Section 19 nor Section 22 of the Act applies to the facts of this case. Argument, as mentioned above, is, however, contrary to the said stand. The question with respect to Sections 19, 21 and 22 of the Act was duly considered by this Court at least in two decisions viz. in S.A.No.918 of 1979 dated 18.02.1983 reported in T. SEETHA MAHALAXMAMMA v. M. DAIVA PRASAD[1] and by a Full Bench of this Court in T.A. LAKSHMI NARASAMBA v. T. SUNDARAMMA[2] wherein it is held that the father-in-law, who died, possessed self-acquired properties prior to the commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and even if the property is bequeathed or gifted by the father-in-law even to a stranger, such person is legally bound to maintain the widow daughter-in-law. In the present case the appellants are the brothers-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff, who claim the property in question under testamentary succession from the father-in-law of the respondent. They are, therefore, equally bound to maintain the respondent. Both the Courts below have, therefore, rightly considered the issue and the findings reached by both the Courts below are not vitiated or perverse and consequently are not open for interference. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 11, 2010 DSK [1] 1983 (1) ALT SN 76 [2] AIR 1981 AP 88