KEMPANNA Vs. M SHANTARAJIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant in Original Suit No 313 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Additional Second Munsiff, Bangalore, is directed against the judgment and decree, reversing those of the trial Court, made by the Civil Judge, Bangalore District. Bangalore in R. A. No. 147 of 1967.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, and they are: One Channappa died leaving behind two sons named Chikkathamanna and Muniswam-appa. Chikkathamanna died prior to 1920, leaving behind his widow Venkata-lakshamma who also died sometime prior to the present suit. The other son Muniswamappa died leaving behind his widow Narayanamma and son Shanta-rajaiah and a grand son Mahesha, who are plaintiffs 3. 1 and 2 respectively. It would appear that a portion of the house end certain land in dispute in the present suit were allotted to the share of Venkatalakshmamma the widow of Chik-kathamanna. The said allotment was made pursuant to Ex. P-l dated 30-3-3920. According to the terms of the said deed the said Venkatalakshmarnma had only the right to enjoy the properties during her lifetime without any powers of alienation. Subsequently on 1-6-1964, i. e. subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 she sold the land in question under Ex. D-l to the appellant herein (defendant). The suit came to be filed by the widow, son and grand son of Muniswam-appa. who was a party to the document Ex. P-l executed in favour of the said Venkatalakshmamma, for the recovery of the suit property. The contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs was that on the death of Venktalakshmamma the property reverted to the family of Muniswamappa. On behalf of the defendant-appellant the one defence with which alone we are concerned herein was, that by virtue of the enactment of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the estate in the hands of Venkatalaksharnrna stood enlarged into s full estate and therefore she was perfectly competent to alienate the property by way of sale in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the said estate was in fact enlarged by the operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Lower Appellate Court, in appeal by the plaintiffs, came to a contrary conclusion and decreed the suit. Hence the appeal.