BASAPPA SANGAPPA UNKI Vs. SIDDAPPA BHIMAPPA HULLYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal is:-

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. Sangappa was the owner of the suit properties. He had two wives viz., Shivalingawwa and Shivawwa. He had no son. He had brought up the plaintiff/appellant as his son. It is an admitted fact that though he bestowed upon the plaintiff/appellant the love and affection of a son, the plaintiff/appellant was never adopted as a son. However, having regard to the love and affection which Sangappa and his two wives had for the plaintiff/appellant, a Will was executed on the 10th of May 1960 by Sangappa in respect of the suit properties, and that Will has also been signed by his two wives. In the Will it is stated that the properties mentioned therein are the properties of Sangappa and that after his death his two widows shall have possession and enjoyment of the properties for their life time without any right of alienation. After their death the properties shall go to the plaintiff/appellant as the absolute owner. There is therefore, no dispute that the Will of Sangappa created a life estate in favour of his two widows, and after their death an absolute estate in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

(3.) It is also not in dispute that after Sangappa's death his two widows came in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and later they sold the suit properties to respondent-1 on 21-10-1971 by registered sale deed. The plaintiff/appellant thereafter filed the instant suit ior a declaration that the alienation made by the two widows was not binding upon him. The trial Court decreed the suit, but in appeal the learned Civil Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the suit holding that the widows having acquired a life estate under the Will in lieu of their pre-existing right of maintenance, their limited estate was enlarged into an absolute estate in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The correctness of this view has been assailed in this Appeal.