VENKATAPPA Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the interpretation of clause (I) of S. 3 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act 1933(Mysore Act X of 1933) which shall be hereinafter called the "Act" comes up for consideration.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in controversy, as determined by the Courts below, briefly stated are as follows : The suit properties belonged to one Subbanna, who died in 1936, leaving behind him his widow Chowdamma and a widowed daughter Pillamma; on the death of Subbanna, the properties devolved on his wife under the provisions of the "Act"; she took only a limited estate; the said Chowdamma sold on 20-2-1946 1/3rd in the plaint item 4 and the whole of items 5 and 6 to the first defendant for Rs. 300/- as per Exhibit I; on the same day she made a gift of items 1, 2 and 3 and 2/3rds of item four in favour of the second defendant as per the registered gift deed Exhibit II; Pillamma joined her mother in the execution of both these deeds, on 12-7-1948 the first defendant sold his 1/3rd share in item 4 to the second defendant as per Ex. III; defendant 1 and 2 are in possession of the properties alienated in their favour.

(3.) Pillamma predeceased her mother who died about 3 years prior to the institution of the suit under appeal. On the date of the death of Chowdamma, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the nearest reversioners to the estate to Subbanna. These facts were accepted in this Court as undisputed facts. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the alienations under Exs. I and II on the ground that they were not executed for necessary purposes. Both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the alienation under Ex. 1 though not for a necessary purpose is protected by Section 18 of the "Act" as Pillamma the nearest reversioner on the date of Ex. I had assented to the same. But the gift deed under Exhibit II was set aside and not being binding on the reversioners. In the result, the suit was decreed for partition and possession of the plaintiffs' half share in plaint items 1, 2 and 3 and 1/3rd in item 4. The suit relating to plant items 5 and 6 was dismissed with the costs of the first defendant.