RAMULU Vs. GOVAR VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is from the Judgment of the District Judge, Nizamabad, given on 30th July, 1960, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was alloWed and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed. The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in this Second Appeal is whether section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereafter called the Act) governs a case where the last Hindu male holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force. In order to find out a satisfactory answer to this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. The plaintiffs- appellants instituted a suit for a declaration that the alienation made by Sayamma, the first defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit, of certain lands under a sale deed dated 9th December, 1955, is a sham and nominal transaction and is not supported by legal necessity and that the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to Pedda Saidu, the last male holder of the property and that they are not bound by the said alienation after the death of Sayamma, the alienor.

(2.) The defence raised was that, Pedda Saidu died possessed of the suit propertyj that the plaintiffs, are not entitled to sue for the declaration as they are not the nearest heirs of Pedda Saidu and that the alienation is not assailable because it was effected by Sayamma for legal necessity. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of section 14 of the Act. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiffs are the nearest heirs entitled to succeed to the estate of Pedda Saidu. The learned District Munsif also held on all the issues against the defendants. The defendants therefore preferred an appeal which was allowed. It was held by the District Judge that section 8 of the Act governs the instant case and in the light of the schedule to section 8 of the Act the plaintiffs are not the superior heirs to Pedda Saidu and they are not therefore entitled to sue. It is this view of the learned District Judge that is now assailed in this Second Appeal.

(3.) The principal contention of Mr. Jaleel Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the appellants, is that, inasmuch as Pedda Saidu admittedly died long before the Act came into force the suit was instituted on 24th January, 1956, by the reversioners for declaration that the alienation made by the widow is not binding upon them. Although Sayamma died on 4th September, 1956, during the pendency of the suit and the Act came into force in July, 1956, it is the orthodox Hindu Law which governs the case according to which the plaintiffs are the heirs to Pedda Saidu and not; Sayamma, the daughter of Limbagiri, the brother of Pedda Saidu, the last male holder. It is convenient here to read section 8 of the Act :