HANAMANGOUDA Vs. HANAMANGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has come up before us on a reference made under the proviso to S.6 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. The principal question that arises in this appeal is whether a female Hindu who was in possession of any property in lieu of her maintenance under an instrument or settlement before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), becomes the full owner of such property under S.14 of the Act. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit land and for restraining defendant-1 from alienating it in favour of defendant-2. It is common ground that plaintiff-1's father, defendant-1's husband and plaintiff-2's father were brothers and that defendant-1's husband died earlier to the other two.

(2.) Both the Courts below have held that defendant 1 had executed in the year 1335 Fasli the Ekararnama, Ex.P1, in favour of plaintiff-1 and the father of plaintiff-2. It is staled therein, inter alia, that she had obtained a decree against them for her maintenance at the rate of Rs.50 per annum, that as they were unable to pay her the maintenance, as per the settlement of respectable persons they put her in possession of the suit land, for her maintenance till her dcith, that tney would be reversionary owners of that land, that it would not be sold or mortgaged by her, that registration of that document was not possible then and that she would get it registered whenever required by them.

(3.) Both the Courts below held that the Ekrarnama, Ex.P1, did not require registration, that as defendant-1 got possession of the suit land under an instrument which provided that she should have no more than a life interest in that land, sub-sec. (2) and not sub-sec. (1) of S.14 of the Act was applicable to the case and that her interest in such property was not transformed into an absolute estate. In that view, both the Courts decreed the suit and granted a permanent injunction restraining defendant-1 from alienating the suit land in favour of defendant-2. Defendant-2 has appealed. Defendant-1 has been impleaded as respondent-3.