RADHABAI GANPATI Vs. BHIMRAI GYANOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Second Appeal is filed by the defendants against the concurrent decrees passed by the two Courts below, declaring that by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act or by virtue of the document exh. 49 under which defendant No. 1 was put in possession of the suit property in lieu of the maintenance right, defendant No. 1 did not become the absolute owner thereof and restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit property. The admitted genealogy showing the relation between the parties is as follows:

(2.) On Sept. 18, 1963 the respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that defendant No. 1 Radhabai was entitled to enjoy the possession of the suit property only during her lifetime and for the issue of a perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating or wasting the suit property. The suit property consists of two pairs of bullocks, a cow, a she-buffalo, utensils worth Rs. 300, a pair of silver Kadas, a golden Chitang, a Nose ring, Rs. 750 in cash, a bullock-cart, a cattle-shed covered with zinc sheets, a double stored room, S. No. 25 measuring 12 acres 20 gunthas and S. No. 26 (AA) measuring 11 acres and 11 gunthas, situated at village Patoda Khurd in taluka Kinwat, district Nanded.

(3.) The plaintiff contended that the husband of defendant No. 1 Ganpati who was the plaintiff's paternal grandfather's real brother died in or about 1940 A. D. in a state of jointness with the plaintiff's grand-father Tukaram, long before the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act came into force in Nanded. There is no dispute that Radhabai did not get any right under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act as prevailing in Hyderabad. It was alleged by the plaintiff that a written agreement dated June 29, 1950, exh. 49, was executed by way of family arrangement between the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and under that family arrangement the suit properties were given to defendant No. 1 to be enjoyed by her During her lifetime. Under the said agreement she acknowledged that she had no right to mortgage or sell or to take in adoption.