ALLAREDDI VENKATASUBBA REDDI Vs. ALLAREDDI PENCHALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Second Appeals raise a question as to the interpretation of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. For a better appreciation of the problem arising for decision in these appeals, it is necessary to state the material facts. One Allareddi Dasaradharamareddi, a bachelor, died in or about the year 1925, leaving him surviving his mother Penchalamma. On the death of her son, Penchalamma came into possession of his estate. On 20th October, 1954, she executed three settlement deeds, Exhibits B-1 to 6-3, whereunder she settled all the properties comprised in her son's estate on her daughter's daughters, reserving a life-interest for herself. The plaintiffs, two in number, claiming that they and the third defendant are the nearest reversioners to the estate of the last male-holder, instituted the suits, out of which these appeals have arisen, for a declaration that the settlement deeds, Exhibits B-1, B-2 and 6-3, executed by Penchalamma in favour of her grand-daughters, are not binding on them. Penchalamma was impleaded as the first defendant in the suits, while each of the three grand-daughters was impleaded as the second defendant. The first defendant and the settlees resisted the suits on the following grounds : (1) that the plaintiffs and the third defendant are not the nearest presumptive reversioners ; (2) that the last male-holder executed a will on 12th September, 1925, bequeathing all his properties in favour of his mother with absolute rights ; and (3) that under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the first defendant became the full owner of the properties.

(2.) .The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs and the third defendant were the nearest presumptive reversioners to the estate of the last male-holder ; and that the will relied upon by the first defendant had not been proved to be the last will and testament of Dasaradharamireddi; anorthese findings are no longer in controversy. On the question as to whether the first defendant became the full owner by virtue of the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the trial Court held that she did not, while the lower appellate Court came to a contrary conclusion. The lower appellate Court held that under section 14 of the Act, the first defendant's limited interest was enlarged into an absolute estate and thereby put an end to the rights of the presumptive reversioners to seek the declaration sought for by them, and on this conclusion the suits were dismissed.

(3.) It will be convenient at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 14 reads as follows :- " (i) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.-In this sub-section 'property' includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of a maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (a) Nothing contained in sub-section (i) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribed a restricted estate in such property."