VADLAMANI SESHAMMA Vs. VADLAMANI KONDAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal raises a novel question of law. The plaintiff is the appellant. She executed a surrender deed on 22-1-1937 in favour of the nearest reversioner's, namely, Seetaramayya, the 1st defendant's husband and Venkatarao, the 2nd defendant. Three days after the execution of the surrender deed, the surrenderees executed a maintenance deed in her favour dated 25-1-1937. It was provided under that document that the plaintiff would be maintained by them for all her life. It was further provided that if she found it difficult to live with them and expressed her desire to live separate, by the issue of a separate registered notice, she would be paid a maintenance of Rs. 50/- per year in two equal instalments of Rs. 25/-. The plaintiff having expressed her unwillingness to live in the family, she was paid maintenance as fixed under the document till one year prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was filed by her for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the prices have risen considerably and that she is unable to maintain herself with Rs. 50/- per year. Among other defences, the defendants, resisted the suit on the main ground that the suit was not maintainable as the liability to pay maintenance was only contractual. Both the Courts below held that the suit for enhancement of main tenance was not maintainable and dismissed that suit. The plaintiff has consequently preferred the Second Appeal.

(2.) The first question that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is whether the surrenderee is liable to provide maintenance to the widow who surrenders the estate in his favour. There is no direct authority on this point and the question has therefore to be decided on a consideration of the general principles relating to the law of surrender. As pointed out by Mukherjea J. in Nalvarlal v. Dadubhai, 1954 (1) M.L.J. 69 at 73 "the law of surrender by a Hindu widow, as it stands at present, is for the most part, judge-made law, though it may not be quite correct to say that there is absolutely no textual authority upon which the doctrine could be founded, at least, impliedly." As the Supreme Court has clearly and lucidly summarised the law relating to surrender in the decision referred to supra, it is unnecessary for me to refer to the earlier decisions of the Privy Council or the Supreme Court on this point. The relevant observations are at page 73 and as are as follows:-

(3.) Though the widow surrenders the estate, still she continues to live and has to be provided with maintenance. At page 78, Mukherjea J. continues: