RAMACHANDRA BHAT Vs. SRIDEVIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a certain Krishna Vokunnayya-1 who died some time prior to March 1909 leaving behind him his two sons Vasudeva-I and Shankaranarayana-I. Vasudeva-I died leaving behind him two sons, Vasudeva-II and Krishna-II. Shankaranarayana-I had no issue. That on 3-3-1909 there was a partition of the family properties amongst Vasudeva-II, Krishna-II and Shankaranarayana-I. At that partition certain properties were allotted to the share of Krishna-II. Krishna-II died on, 25-2-1919 leaving behind him his widow Rukminiamma and a daughter by name Srideviamma (plaintiff). At the time of his death, Rukminiamma was pregnant and gave birth to a posthumous male child on 13-9-1919.

(2.) According to law that was in force at the time of the death of Krishna-II the posthumous male child boon on 13-9-19 was the sole heir of the estate of Krishna-II and hence the said child became the full and absolute owner of the same. The said male child died on 13-1-20. Rukminiamma the mother of the said child succeeded to his estate as a limited owner. The properties with which we are now concerned formed part of the said estate. On 4-8-1920 a document styled as 'Vyavastha Pathra' was executtd by Rukminiamma in favour of Vasudeva-II and one of his sons, Shankaranarayana-II. Under that document she transferred the possession of the properties referred to therein which had been inherited by her as a limited owner from the male child, subject to certain conditions. It is unnecessary to refer to those conditions for the purpose of this order. By several transfers that took place thereafter defendants 1 and 2 came into possession of the properties which were transferred under the 'Vyavastha Pathra' and were in possession of the same on 17-6-1967 on which date Rukminiamma the limited holder under whom they claimed, died. After her death her daughter Sridevi (plaintiff) instituted O.S.No.6/68 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, out of which this appeal arises, for possession of those properties on the ground that she was the nearest heir to the last male holder and was therefore entitled to get possession of the properties. In the course of the written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was not a reversioner in the eye of law who could maintain the suit. It was pleaded by them that at the time of the death of the male child which took place on 13-1-1920 the plaintiff could not have been the nearest heir to the estate of the last made holder according to law in force then, but Vasudeva-II was a nearer heir than the plaintiff.

(3.) The Court below found that the plaintiff was entitled to, succeed to the estate of the last male holder in view of the provisions of S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the intervening limited estate held by Rukminiamma had come to an end after the coming into force of the Act.