BANGARU REDDI Vs. MANGAMMAL ALIAS JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent forfeits her right to property which she obtained under a deed of settlement Exhibit P -1 executed in her favour by the appellant on 7th June, 1938. The appellant Bangaru Reddi and one Sundara Reddi were undivided brothers. The plaintiff -respondent was married to Sundara Reddi in August, 1937. Unfortunately, Sundara Reddi died in April, 1938, leaving the plaintiff (still a minor) a widow. The deed in question was executed by the appellant in favour of the minor respondent represented by her guardian and father one Govinda Reddi. In September, 1941, the plaintiff married one Viswanatha Reddi. In December, 1941, the appellant issued a notice to her alleging that she had forfeited her right to the property settled on her on account of her re -marriage. The respondent was compelled to file the suit out of which this second appeal arises in respect of one of the items of property for a declaration that the property belongs to her and for possession free from the obstruction of the defendant. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit but on appeal the learned District Judge has granted a decree in her favour. The first defendant appeals.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the appellant first contended that under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Re -marriage Act (XV of 1856) the plaintiff forfeited her right to the property. Section 2 runs as follows:

(3.) THE next contention was that under the settlement deed the property must be deemed to have continued to form part of her husband's estate and the widow did not have a full and absolute estate, an estate which for example would be taken after her by her stridhana heirs.