V. SAMPATHKUMARI Vs. M. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already perused the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother Venkataraman J. and although I entirely agree in the conclusions he has reached, I would like to add a few words of my own on the questions of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Aijrangar, counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THREE main contentions were urged by him. The first related to the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to this case. It consisted of two parts, the first part factual and the other part legal. The factual part consisted in the argument that the possession of the estate by the 2nd defendant amounted to alienation of the properties by the widows and consequently the widows should be held to be not in possession of the estate when alone the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act would be attracted. The argument has been dealt with fully by my learned brother and I do not propose to add anything more to what he has said. I agree with him that the possession of the estate, either move -able or immoveable, by the and defendant does not amount to alienation of it by the widows, as he occupies the position of an agent of the widows or one of them.

(3.) IN none of the decisions so far available on this topic has this distinction been brought out. It may be material to point out this distinction though it does not affect the disposal of the appeal now before us. Cases may arise where a Hindu female acquires property after the commencement of the Act but does not get possession of it at once. In which event, the distinction may become relevant to find out whether the enlargement of the limited estate into a full estate takes effect from the date of the acquisition or after possession also is acquired by the female. I do not expatiate further upon this point because the question does. not arise for our consideration in this appeal and possibly the decision in Appeal No. 423 of 1946 cited above may furnish the answer.