PENTAPATI CHITTI MAHALAKSHMI Vs. GANNAVARAPU SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this court consisting of Gangadhara Rao and Jeevan Reddy, JJ referred L.P.A.98/77 for a decision by a Full Bench formulating the following three questions: 1. (a) Whether Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had overriding effect on succession taking place after 1956 and as such Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 ceases to have any effect? (b) In a case where a daughter became entitled to the office and emoluments as defined in Section 3(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hereditary Village Offices Act III of 1895, and the daughter died in 1958 after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is the succession still governed by Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area) Hereditary Village Offices Act, or by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act?

(2.) What is the impact of the Andhra Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and the repeal of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 on service inam lands, and whether such service inam lands are alienable or not? 2. The facts leading to this reference may be stated: The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. She filed O.S.No. 344/70 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property or in the alternative for partition of those lands into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to her. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is averred in the plaint that one Pallavarapu Bhimanna of Editha village was the holder of a carpenter service inam. The plaint schedule lands and some other lands pertain to that service. The said Bhimanna alienated those lands but nevertheless executed a will Ex. B-3 dated 15-3-1938 bequeathing property to his wife Somamma. Bhimanna died in 1942 leaving behind him his widow Somamma and two daughters Pullamma and Manikyamba. The 1st defendant is the husband of Manikyamba The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are their children; the 4th defendant is the husband of Pullamma and they have a daughter not made party to the suit. The 4th defendant is the brother of Somarnma. After the death of Bhimanna his widow Somamma succeeded to the office of the carpenter service and when she resigned the said office her daughters Pullamma and Manikyamba succeeded to the same. Both those daughters filed Summary Suit No. 4/1948 before the Sub Collector, Rajahmundry questioning the alienations made by their father Bhimanna. The suit was decreed on 7-5-1951 as per Ex.-A1 so far as Manikyamba was concerned but the same was held barred by limitation so far as Pullamma was concerned. However the property so obtained after executing the decree was divided between both the sisters under partition deed dated 23- 4-1956 as per Ex. A-2 and the suit land fell to the share of Manikyamba, the plaintiff's mother. Manikyamba settled 67 cents of land in item 2 of plaint A schedule on her mother Somamma under Ministered settlement deed dated 23-4-1956 as per Ex.A-3 giving her life interest with a provision that the property should revert to Manikyamba and her heirs after the death of Somamma It is the case of the plaintiff that the 4th defendant was looking after the litigation regarding the summary suit and was also performing the carpenter service and cultivating the suit lands on behalf of the above sisters Pullamma and Manikyamba Manikyamba and Pullamma died in the year 1958 and there is no evidence who predeceased whom. The plaint further avers that the 1st defendant, father of plaintiff (husband of Manikyamba) was not a worldly wise man and the 4th defendant obtained a registered sale deed Ex. B-2 dated 10-12-1969 in respect of the entire plaint A schedule property from Somamma for a cash consideration of Rs.500/- when she was weak and not in proper senses. The plaintiff also claimed that defendants 1 to 3 conveyed their interests orally to her. Hence she filed the present suit out of which this appeal arose for recovery of plaint schedule properties or in the alternative for partition of those properties and allotment of one such share to her.

(3.) The 4th defendant who contested the suit raised the defence that Somamma after having succeeded to the office on the death of her husband continued to enjoy the property, and the summary suit filed by the sisters was for the benefit of Somamma. The partition deed and the settlement deed Exs.A-2 and A3 respectively were nominal and Somamma willingly executed the sale deed for consideration under Ex. B-2 which is valid and binding and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.