A SUBBA NAIDU Vs. RAJAMMAL ALIAS THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial court and the appellate court have concurrently found against the plaintiff, the appellant herein, and dismissed his suit for possession and for means profits. As may be presently seen, the dismissal of the suit purely due to a failure of the courts below to understand the scope of Section 14 (1) and section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(2.) THE appellant's suit came to be filed in the following circumstances: One ayyalu Naidu derived some properties in a family partition as evidenced by Ex. A-2 dated 26-9-1938. He had two wifes, Krishnachi Ammal who is the mother of the respondent and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the appellant. He died on 10-1-1939 leaving the appellant as the sole copartner of the erstwhile joint family. The suit properties which are of an extent of 1. 56 acres were given sometime after the death of Ayyalu Naidu to Krishnachi Ammal for enjoying the usufruct therefrom towards her maintenance Krishnachi Ammal died on 19-111969. Thereafter the appellant claimed that the properties should revert back to him and therefore, made a demand on the respondent to surrender possession. As the demand was refused, the appellant filed his suit. The contention of the appellant was that Krishnachi Ammal had no right whatever in the properties of his father and therefore, the entire properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu had been inherited by him. The giving of the suit properties to Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of her maintenance was by a family arrangement and therefore, the right given to her got extinguished on her death and did not get enlarged under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act so as to entitle the respondent to claim a right over them.

(3.) THE respondent raised various contentions in the suit. She firstly stated that her mother had a right in the properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu and, therefore, the suit properties were taken by her mother in her own right and not as a result of any concession. It was her further case that the suit properties were not given to her mother in lieu of maintenance. A post-card, Ex b-21 dated 25-10-1955 written by the appellant to Krishnachi Ammal and the respondent was also projected to contend that therein the appellant had conceded the right and title of Krishnachi Ammal to the suit properties and therefore, he was estopped from going back on that admission and claim the properties as belonging to him. The last of the defence was that prior to the filing of the instant suit, the appellant had filed O. S. No. 103 of 1970 against the lessee in occupation of the lands and tried to recover possession from him and in that suit, it had been held that the appellant was not the lessor and therefore, the judgement in that suit would operate as res judicata.