THIMMARAYAPPA Vs. THOLASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law which could been in this second appeal was whether the 1st defendant's estate on the relevant date was a limited estate or an absolute estate in terms of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.

(2.) On the admitted facts that question does not arise at all. Indisputably, the defendants who were off-springs of the second wife of the husband of the 1st defendant who was the third wife of one Puttaiah who by a will had endowed certain properties on the third wife of the 1st defendant for her life time. When she was enjoying that property as on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the fact that the same property was accepted by her under a subsequent deed of settlement in terms of which a compromise decree was passed would not affect the nature and character of her possession which was in lieu of her maintenance. Therefore, the character of a limited estate had not disappeared by virtue of the settlement deed in terms of sub-sec. (I) of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. That limited estate on account of her possession as on the date of the coming into force of the Act was, by operation of law, converted into her absolute estate-property.

(3.) The question is really not res integra. The same has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Readdy (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1944). The appeal is misconceived and it is dismissed.