THOPPA NAICKER Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law raised in this second appeal is with reference to the interpretation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in and by which, any right of a female Hindu, who possessed any property acquired either before or after the commencement of the Act, should be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

(2.) In the case on hand, the respondents herein who are the wife and daughter of the deceased Andi Naicker came forward with the suit for partition as against the appellant who is none other than the younger brother of the said Andi Naicker, in respect of 11 items of suit schedule properties said to have been owned by the joint family of the appellant along with the deceased Andi Naicker. The said Andi Naicker is stated to have expired on 20/8/1952. Out of 11 items of the properties, in respect of item No.9, it is conceded by the respondents herein that the same is the exclusive property of the Appellant's daughter and therefore the conclusion of the Courts below in excluding the said item of the property is not questioned As regards the other properties, the contention of the respondents was that those properties were the joint family properties of the deceased Andi Naicker held along with the appellant herein, that the first respondent herein being the widow of the late Andi Naicker, was as a matter of right, entitled to half share in the various part items of the suit schedule properties except item No.9. The Courts below accepted the case pleaded by the first respondent herein and passed a preliminary decree in favour of the first respondent herein.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to Sections 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would vehemently contend that as there was no pre-existing right in favour of the first respondent herein as on the date when 1956 Act came into force, she had absolutely no right to rest her claim based on sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act The learned counsel relied upon Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (died) by LRs., as well as 1999 SCR Civil 185 equivalent to Smt. Naresh Kumar (died) fay LRs. v. Shakshi Lal (dead) by LRs., and Velumurl Venkata Sivaprasad (dead) by LRs. v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (dead) by LRs.