VURUMUTLA PAMULU Vs. KUPPA BHANUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question of law argued by both the learned counsel on record is as hereunder:

(2.) Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel representing the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 would submit that both the Courts had totally erred in appreciating the scope and ambit of Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. The learned counsel would submit that the facts are not in controversy at all and the only question which may have to be decided is the applicability of Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Act referred to supra. The counsel also had taken this Court through Section 14(1) of the Act and further placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in BALWANT KAUR vs. CHANAN SINGH. The counsel also would submit that the view expressed in CHANAN SINGH vs. BALWANT KAUR in fact was reversed and hence in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the appellants are bound to succeed in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ramalingeswar Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents 2 to 6 would maintain that concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration of their rights in the plaint schedule property. Learned counsel in all fairness would submit that in view of the plaintiffs' contention that the 1st defendant is a tenant, the Courts below had negatived the relief of possession and the same cannot be found fault with, but as far as the declaration of right is concerned, inasmuch as the Courts below recorded concurrent findings, the same may have to be confirmed. On the aspect of the applicability of Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Act referred to supra the counsel made certain submissions on the aspect of the words or expression "property possessed by a female Hindu" and would contend that inasmuch as the deceased was not in possession of the property and had no pre-existing right for conferment of full ownership, the stand taken by the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 cannot be said to be a sustainable stand. The counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment reported in RAM VISHAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS vs. JAGAN NATH AND ANOTHER.