RAMALINGAM Vs. PUNITHAVALLI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises a question of some importance as to the construction of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (which we shall sometimes refer to also as the Act ). The facts giving rise to this litigation are not now in dispute. One Somasundara Udayar, a resident of Poongavur village in Thanjavore District, died sometime, before the year 1937, leaving him surviving his widow, Sellathachi and two daughters, Kuppammal and Punithavalli Ammal, the last of them being the first respondent to this appeal. The properties left by Somasundara were inherited by his widow and were in her possession on the date when the Act came into force. Punithavalli Ammal was a disappointment to her mother, she having left her husband in the year 1947 to live with her paramour. Disputes even arose between them and Sellathachi bad to file a suit in the year 1948 and that successfully to restrain her daughter and her paramour from interfering with the properties in her possession.

(2.) WHILE so, the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 14-6-1956. By virtue of the provision contained in Section 14 (1) of the Act, Sellathachi became the absolute owner of the properties which she inherited from her husband.

(3.) SHE then appears to have contemplated taking the appellant in adoption and secured the necessary consent from her husband's relations for the purpose. Just a few days before the adoption took place, she settled an extent of seven acres and thirty six cents of land on her elder daughter Kuppammal for her life with a gift over to the son to be adopted. Under the same document an extent of two acres and twenty eight cents were given to the settlor's brother. The document also provided that if Punithavalli Ammal were to leave her paramour and reform herself, half of the net income, if Kuppammal was agreeable, from the properties settled on her, might be given to the former for her maintenance. The validity of this document has not now been questioned.