POLANATI BASAVAYYA Vs. POLANATI VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru decreeing the plaintiff's suit for maintenance at the rates of Rs. 300 per annum as past maintenance for 12 years prior to the date of suit and at the rate of Rs. 600 per annum for future maintenance from the date of the suit. The circumstances in which the plaintiff filed the suit are as follows : Plaintiffs husband Viranna and the 1st defendant were brothers of a joint Hindu family owning A and B schedule properties. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant. It is alleged by the plaintiff, and it has not been denied by the defendants, that the plaintiff was twelve years old when her husband died and since then she was living with her father till 1952, when he died. Plaintiff made a demand for past and future maintenance in 1952 but the 1st defendant had not accepted her demand nor paid her any amount, and hence the suit. The defendants stated that the plaintiff's father Duggirala Subbarayudu was a very rich man. He had no male issue and so, after the marriage of the plaintiff with the 1st defendant's brother, the 1st defendant's brother went to stay with him and died at the place itself. Apart from the gold and jewellery given to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage in 1938, some time after her husband's death there was a settlement made and further gold was given. A cart, two bullocks and one horse, were also given to her in lieu of maintenance. It is also the defendants' case that in 1938, the plaintiff caused a notice to be issued to them demanding maintenance, to which the 1st defendant gave a suitable reply denying any liability to pay maintenance. In this notice he also averred that a settlement had already been made and since 1938 no demand was made, it would be deemed that she had accepted the position taken by the 1st defendant and her suit was not tenable. Apart from this, the quantum of maintenance has also been disputed. The trial Court framed the following issues, viz., :

(2.) On issues 1 and 2, as we have already said, past maintenance for twelve years at the rate of Rs.300 per annum and future maintenance at the rate oi Rs. 600 per annum were awarded. For residence, the Subordinate Judge fixed a lump sum amount oi Rs. 300, Rs. 100 for pilgrimage and Rs. 100 for utensils. On the third issue, he held that the settlement pleaded by the defendants was not true. In respect of issue No. 4, he has directed a chaige on A schedule properties. In this appeal, at the very outset, it was contended that a Full Bench decision in Veerraju v. Narayanamma, I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 22 : (1952) 2 M.L.J. 734 : (F.B.), requires reconsideration. In that case, after a review of the entire case-law, Rajamannar, C.J., deliverir.g the judgment of the Full Bench, held that the widow of a deceased coparcener in a joint Hindu family has a right of maintenance against the surviving coparceners qudad the share of her deceased husband which survives to them and that this is an absolute right which accrues to her as a member of the joint family. "On the death of her husband she continues to be a member of the joint family along with the male coparceners. Her fortunes are bound up with the fortunes of the family. If the income of the family increases, she will be entitled to the benefit of it. Likewise, if the income of the family decreases, she must submit to a reduction of the maintenance. In fixing the rate of maintenance, the income of the joint family at the time of the institution of the suit should be taken into consideration and not as it stood at the date of her husband's death."

(3.) This judgment having been delivered before the formation of the Andhra State it was binding upon this Court in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Subbarayudu v. State, (1955) A.L.T. (Crl.) 53 (F.B.). But, subsequently, Umamaheswaram, J., seemed to have cast a doubt as to the applicability of this judgment in Krishnamurthy v. Suryakantamma, (1954) 2 M.L.J. (Andh.! 170 : A.I.R. 1955 Andh. 5, becasue of the observation that it was unnecessary for him to express any final view as to whether the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Veerraju v. Nararannma, should be followed in its entirety or the observations of the eminent Judge Bashyam Ayyangar in Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangatnma, I.L.R.(1904)27 Mad. 45 : 12 M.L.J. 270, should be followed. This matter came up for consideration before Subba Rao, C.J., and one of us (Hon'ble the present Chief Justice) in an unreported decision of this Court in Appeals. Nos. 982 of 1952 and 181 to 183 of 1953. decided on 9!h August, 1957, in which Mr. Sankara Sastry had contended that the Full Bench judgment should be followed. We had, after a review of the entire case-law and on a full consideration of the question, held that the view expressed by the Full Bench was in consonance with authority and that even the views expressed by Bashyam Ayyangar, J., in Jayanti Subb. v. Alamelu Mangamma, were not inconsistent with the vkw of the Full Bench. In that view, we held that the quantum of maintenance must be fixed in accordance with the property which the joint family possessed on the date of suit and not on the date of the death of the husband. We shall apply these principles in considering the question as to what is the quantum of maintenance to which the plaintiff is entitled.