L R S SMT PINKAKANA PASAMMA Vs. BHIMADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Single Judge, Chinnappa Reddy J., allowed the second appeal preferred by defendants 3 to 7 against the judgment and decree of the Additional District judge, Srlkakulam confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Sompeta, in O.S.No 283 of 1964 and granted leave. That is how this Letters Patent Appeal is before us.

(2.) The sole point that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether, under section 15 (2) (a) of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, the father is excluded and the father's heirs are made the heirs when a female Hindu dies leaving property Inherited by her from her father or mother, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased. Our learned brother, Chinnappa Reddy, J., construed the words 'upon the heirs of the father' in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 as meaning ''upon the father and in default, of the father, upon the heirs of the father. 'It is this construction placed upon clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 by the learned judge that is assailed by Mr. Kodandaramalah, the learned Counsel for the appellants.

(3.) The facts necessary for appreciating the question involved may be set out. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit property from defendants I and 2 under a sale deed dated 10-9-1957. The plaintiff who died subsequent to the filing of the second appeal, laid claim to the property on the ground that the property was inherited by her from her mother and sued for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants I and 2 in favour cf the 3rd defendant and for possession of the suit property.