VELU Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of this second appeal depends on the answer to the question whether the widow of a divided member of a Hindu family succeeds to his properties when he dies without issue in preference to his mother. The 1st plaintiff had a son Picha Govindan who died issueless leaving a widow, the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is Picha Govindan's deceased father's brother. In 1096, Picha Govindan, the 1st defendant and others partitioned their properties and the plaint property was allotted to Picha Govindan. After his death, the 2nd defendant relinquished her rights in favour of the 1st defendant. The 2nd plaintiff was alleged to be a younger brother of Picha Govindan who was fraudulently excluded at the time of partition. The plaintiffs sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property described in the plaint schedule. The 1st defendant contended inter alia that the widow and not the 1st plaintiff succeeded to Picha Govindan and that the 2nd plaintiff was not a member of Picha Govindan's family. The 2nd plaintiff's status as a member of the family was concurrently found against by both courts. The Trial Court dismissed the suit while the lower appellate court reversed that decision and gave a decree to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant has preferred this second appeal against the decision of the lower appellate court.

(2.) The only point pressed in second appeal is that since Picha Govindan was a divided member of the family at the time of his death, his widow succeeded to his properties as he died issueless. According to Hindu Mitakshara Law which governs the parties this does not admit of any doubt. As stated in Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage (11th Edn. p. 584):

(3.) The law on this point has been elaborately discussed in a recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Neelamma v. Perumal 1953 KLT 515 (AIR 1953 Travancore Cochin 518). That was a case of the last male member of a Hindu coparcenary who died unmarried. The view expressed in a Full Bench decision of the Travancore High Court in Ramal Kooppoo Ammal v. Ammani Rukmini Ammal (5 Travancore Law Reporter 45) was dissented from. The case of a divided member who dies issueless is one covered by the text of Yajnavalkya extracted above. Even though there was some controversy in respect of the property of the last surviving male member who was undivided at the time of his death, that also has now been set at rest by the decision in Neelamma v. Perumal. In this view the 1st plaintiff cannot succeed and the decision of the lower appellate court is unsustainable.