MANGAMMA DIED Vs. M B SUBBARAMAPPA NAYANIMVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is" the legal representative of the Ist defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 9 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. Their paternal grandfather was one Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru. Mangarnma, the 1st defendant in the suit was the permanent kept mistress of the said Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru. He also had two legally wedded wives. On 29-2-1932 Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru executed a gift deed (Ex. B-1) gifting away a double storeyed building known as Swarna Mahal in Chittoor town to Mangamma. Thereafter some time in the year 1937 Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru died. After his death Mangamma instituted a suit, O.S. No. 62 of 1937 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor against Sesha-chalapathi Rajulumgaru, the father of the plaintiffs seeking maintenance. That suit ended in a compromise (Ex. A-4). The said compromise decree has two schedules. Schedule A pertains to the main residential building, and schedule B refers to a part of that building and compound admeasuring 80'x30'. The plaint A and B schedules are identical to schedules A and B of the compromise decree, Ex.A-4. Under the compromise decree besides a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30/- Mangamma was given a portion of Swarna Mahal with a condition that Sesha-chalapathi Rajulumaru should construct a bathroom, kitchen, and provide a backyard and make it habitable and until that was done Mangamma would be entitled to be in possession of the entire building. The right conferred on Mangamma under the compromise decree was only a life estate.

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit, O.S. No. 9 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chittoor for a declaration and possession of the building Swarna Mahal. It was pleaded by them that the plaint schedule property belonged to their father Seshachalapathi Rajulumgaru who obtained the same at a partition between himself and his brother, Venkatappa Nayanimvaru and at the partition among the members of Seshacbalapathi Rajulumgaru the building fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Referring to the compromise decree, Ex.A-4 it was alleged by the plaintiffs that B schedule property was let out by Mangamma to the 2nd defendant without their consent or knowledge. They alleged that the 1st defendant Mangarnma had no right to the property covered by the compromise deed; her stay in the portion covered by A schedule was only to provide her with temporary accommodation. Although in the first instance the plaintiffs took the stand that there was no need for them to seek the relief of declaration of the subsequently an issue was framed covering that aspect also.

(3.) In the written statement, the stand taken by Mangamma was that in recognition of her pre-existing right the compromise decree created a charge over the A schedule property and the limited right conferred on her had enlarged into an absolute one on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, herein after referred to as "the Act".