CHANAMMA Vs. LINGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 146/66 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Mandya. It is directed against a concurring Judgment made in R. A. No. 22 of 1968 by the learned District Judge. Mandya. That was an appeal preferred by the present appellant herself against the judgment and decree of dismissal of her suit

(2.) The material facts are not in dispute, and briefly stated, they are :--the appellant and the first defendant and another are three widows of three brothers who were members of a joint Hindu family. The appellant is the widow of the youngest brother who died last. The first respondent is the widow of the second brother, who died subsequent to the death of the eldest brother. The widow of the eldest is not arrayed in the suit. By an agreement between the three widows on 23-3-1927 the suit properties were allotted for maintenance to the two senior widows. The said agreement has been produced along with the plaint and the same has not been marked, and is not disputed by any one. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956, the first respondent herein sold the property in dispute to the second respondent on 20-8-1966. Hence the present suit by the appellant seeking for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of the second respondent would not be binding on her. On behalf of the respondents, the plea taken is that by virtue of the operation of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the estate held by the widow in lieu of maintenance has been enlarged into a full estate, and therefore, it is competent for the first respondent to sell the property, as if she is the absolute owner thereof.

(3.) Before the Courts below, the principal contention urged was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the estate was enlarged, as contended for on behalf of the respondents by virtue of the provisions of the Act. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the estate was, in fact, enlarged by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) and, therefore, the sale impugned was valid. In this view, the suit was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.