SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but important question relating to the interpretation of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 comes up for consideration in this case.

(2.) A Mitakshara Hindu died leaving his widow and two sons, the respondent and his younger brother, Rama Iyer, the husband of the appellant. Rama Iyer also died leaving his widow, the appellant, and no children. The respondent, his mother and the appellant effected a partition in December 1952, under which some properties were given to the appellant and the other properties were jointly left with the respondent and his mother. A portion of the lands allotted to the appellant was subsequently acquired by the Government towards the end of 1956 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force; and the appellant and the respondent both laid claim to the compensation money. The Government referred the matter to the court and both the lower courts have held that the respondent alone is entitled to the amount and the appellant is not.

(3.) IN the case before me the property was obtained by the female Hindu at a partition; and therefore, the learned counsel of the appellant contends that the property remains within Sub- section 1 and the appellant is entitled to it as full owner. But Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon, the learned counsel of the respondent, claims that the partition deed will come within the term "any other instrument" in Sub-section 2. The result of the latter contention is that if any property is obtained by a female Hindu under a partition document or a partition decree or a partition award, her right will be regulated by the document, decree or award, in spite of the document, decree or award being a partition deed, partition decree or partition award; and Sub-section 1 will not apply.