SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. ANANTHA SHENOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the 5th defendant from the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of a Hindu family.

(2.) THE suit properties belonged to Lakshmana Shenoi, the late husband of the appellant, as his self -acquisitions. Defendants 1 to 4 are their sons and defendants 6 to 8 the daughters. THEy had another son, Anantha shenoi, whose widow is the 4th plaintiff, and sons the plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is agreed at the Bar that the 6th defendant has, after the institution of this suit, gone out of the family by marriage, and therefore may be left out of count here. Lakshmana Shenoi died in 1943. This suit for partition of his estate was instituted in 1947; and the preliminary decree under appeal herein was passed on January 2,1958. THE judgment of the Subordinate judge reads: "the 5th defendant is the widow of Lakshmana Shenoi. Defendants 7 and 8 are unmarried daughters. . . THE widow and the unmarried daughters are to be maintained out of the yield of family properties. . . Provision has to be made for maintenance of defendants 5, 7 and 8 and for the marriage expense of defendants 7 and 8. THE learned counsel for both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted that a share equal to that of a son may be set apart, to the 5th defendant for her maintenance, and the maintenance of defendants 7 and 8 until their marriage. That share is to revert to plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 after death of 5th defendant and marriage of defendants 7 and 8. " THE appellant challenges the imposition of a condition of reverter on the share allotted to her.

(3.) LAKSHMANA Shenoi died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. He was a native of the erstwhile State of Travancore and the suit properties were also in that State. The law in pre 1956 days is stated in Mulla's 'principles of Hindu Law' thus: "a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law dies leaving a widow and a male issue. He leaves self -acquired property. The male issue will inherit the property subject to the obligation to maintain the widow out of that property. " (Vide: Illustration A to Para. 559 ).