KANURI SRI SANKARA RAO Vs. KANURI RAJYALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law as to the true construction of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, (XXX of 1956) read with Section 3(2) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, (XVIII of 1937) as amended by Act, XI of 1938. In order to appreciate the legal contention raised by Sri T. Ramachandrarao, the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant is the adopted son of Venkatasiva Rao, the village munsif of Vijayavada, who died on 7-6-1956. The 1st defendant is the adoptive mother, i.e., the widow of Venkatasiva Rao (deceased). On 17-7-1956, the plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint scheduled properties. He contended that on a proper interpretation of the terms of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, he is entitled to a three-fourths share in the suit properties and that the 1st defendant is entitled only to a one-fourth share.There was also a dispute in regard to the moveables mentioned in schedule D. The learned Subordinate Judge held that under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, the 1st defendant was entitled to a half share and that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, she was entitled to that half share absolutely. As regards the moveables, he decreed in part. The plaintiff has filed the appeal in regard to the moveables in schedule D which have been disallowed. A memorandum of cross-objections has been filed by the 1st defendant in regard to her stridhana jewels and a half share in the cash alleged to have been left by her husband, as also the costs disallowed.

(3.) The main question that was argued by Sri T. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant, is that as the 1st defendant did not claim partition under Section 3(3) of the Hindu Womens. Rights to Properly Act till the Hindu Succession Act was enacted, it must be held that "she continued the legal persona of the husband till partition" and that under the terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the plaintiff and the 1st defendant take the husbands half share equally.His further contention was that the terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply inasmuch as the 1st defendant did not acquire any property in the husbands half share before the commencement of that Act by reason of no partition having been effected. Having carefully heard the arguments on both sides, I am inclined not to accept the appellants contention.