CHINTALA BUCHAIAH Vs. DASARI VENKATA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of Hindu Law pertaining to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act arises in this appeal by the defendants. The central figure in the whole piece is Nagamma, the widow. Her husband Ankamma died some time prior to 1911. They had no children: The couple brought up Ankamma's nephew Dasari Venkatappaiah from his childhood and looked after him as their son. After the death of Ankamma, the three reversioners Ramineni Venkata Swamy, Ramineni Kotaiah and Ramineni Meeraiah executed a deed of relinquishment Ex. A -2 on 24 -4 -1911 surrendering their rights in the estate of Ankamma in favour of Nagamma. Soon thereafter Nagamma executed a gift deed Ex. A -1 on 20 -8 -1911 settling the entire property consisting of 10 acres 34 cents of land and a residential house in favour of Venkatappaiah with a condition that he should maintain her throughout her life and in case differences arise and she chooses to live separately, she should be put in enjoyment and possession of 3 acres of land and the tiled house towards her maintenance and the same would pass to Venkatappaiah only after her death We will give details of the recitals later when we consider the validity of this document. Nagamma lived with Venkatappaiah and his son Venkata Subbaiah, the plaintiff for some time. Venkatappaiah died in 1916 in or about 1936 Nagamma left the plaintiff's family and went to her sister's grandchildren (defendants in the suit). She was in possession and enjoyment of 3 acres referred to in the gift deed Ex. A -1. In the mean time, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into force on 17 -6 -1956 On 10 -5 -1958 Nagamma executed a gift deed Ex. B -1 conveying the 3 acres of land in her enjoyment to her sister's grand -children with absolute rights of title The deed recites that under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Nagamma's estate had enlarged into an absolute estate and she was conveying the land in her possession cut of love and affection to her sister's grand -children who were looking after her. The deed also mentions that she was harassed by Venkatappaiah and his family members as a result of which she was forced to leave the house of Venkatappaiah and live separately. Eversince that date, the defendants were in possession of 3 acres of land conveyed under Ex. B -1. Nagamma died on 9 -4 -1963. Thereafter, Venkatappaiah's son Venkata Subbaiah, the plaintiff obtained another relinquishment deed Ex. A -16 from the sole surviving reversioner Ramineni Meeraiah surrendering all his rights in the estate of Ankamma in his favour. Meeraiah reiterated the fact of earlier release by all the three reversioners under Ex. A -2. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 31 -3 -1975, for declaration of title and possession of 3 acres of land basing his claim on Exs. A - -1, A - -2 and A -16. He also prayed for past profits for three years prior to the suit and for future profits.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that Ex. A -2 the relinquishment deed executed by the reversioners is invalid and inoperative and it conferred no rights on Nagamma as the reversioners themselves have no right on the property during her life time, that Ex. A -2 the gift deed executed by Nagamma is equally void and inoperative as it is based on Ex. A -1 and since Nagamma got nothing under Ex. A -2, she conveyed nothing under Ex. A -1 and also for the reason that Nagamma was a limited owner with no powers of alienation and the gift deed was not valid beyond her life time. They further contended that Nagamma was in possession of 3 acres on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force in exercise of her pre -existing right of maintenance which she reserved under Ex. A -1 and her rights were enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and as such Nagamma was competent to execute the gift deed Ex. B -1 and the same is true and valid and they have acquired full rights under the said deed. They also contended that Ex. A -16 the second relinquishment deed executed by the reversioner Meeraiah is nothing but a mere scrap of paper as Meeraiah himself had no right in the property as even during the life time of Nagamma she acquired absolute rights. The defendants also contended that the suit is barred by limitation and they acquired title by adverse possession

(3.) THE defendants have now preferred this appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22 -9 -1978. The plaintiff preferred cross -objections as against disallowance of past profits and costs.