MANICKA GOUNDER Vs. ARUNACHALA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has set a problem arising under the provisions of the Hindu women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. (1a) The properties described in the C schedule attached to the plaint in O. S. No. 159 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur belonged to one hanumaji Rao, he having got them as a reversioner of the estate of one raghunatha Roa. Subbanna Rao, the third defendant in the suit, purchased the properties from Hanumaji Rao under the sale deed Ex. A. 1 dated 3-4-1940. There were two brothers, Krishnamurthi Rao and Nagoji Rao. Nagoji Rao died on 10-11950 leaving behind his widow Kamala. Two days after the death of Nagoji Rao, his brother Krishnamurthi Rao, who was unmarried, also dies. Nagoji's widow, kamala, sold the suit properties to the first defendant in the suit under Ex. B. 2, dated 25-8-1950. Krishnamurthi Rao's sister, Rukumani Ammal, the 2nd defendant in the suit, sold the suit properties to the plaintiff under Ex. A. 10 dated 22-2-1951. The 3rd defendant who had purchased the properties from Hanumaji rao and in whose name the apparent title to the properties stood also executed a release deed Ex. A. 9 dated 5-3-1951, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that the 3rd defendant was not the real owner of the properties despite Ex. A. 1 standing in his name, but that he was a benamidar for krishnamurthi Rao, the brother of the said Nagoji Rao. having died, the plaintiff claimed that his sister, the 2nd defendant, was his next heir competent to convey the beneficial interest of Krishnamurthi Rao, in the suit properties. By way of abundant caution the plaintiff also obtained a release deed from the 3rd defendant, the ostensible title holder. The plaintiff therefore prayed for declaration of title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession.

(2.) THE first defendant alone contested the suit, defendants 2 and 3 having remained ex parte. His case also was that the 3rd defendant was not the real owner of the property but was only a benamidar. But according to him the 3rd defendant was not a benamidar for Krishnamurthi Rao alone but was a benamidar for both Krishnamurthi Rao and Nagoji Rao, who together constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. He contended that Nagoji Rao, having died as an undivided coparcener entitled to a moiety of the suit properties, his widow, Kamala acquired rights under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act and that right after the death of Krishnamurthi Rao, the other coparcener, became augmented into right in the entirety of the suit properties and that was conveyed to him by her under Ex. B. 2. He therefore claimed that he was entitled to the whole of the property and that the plaintiff was not entitled to it, part or whole.

(3.) AFTER the institution of the suit the plaintiff field an application for amendment of the plaint praying for the alternative relief by way of partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit properties. The plaintiff's case, therefore, was that either Krishnamurthi Rao was entitled to the whole of the suit properties or to at least a moiety if it were to be held that the other moiety belonged to his brother's widow, Kamala.