PATCHURI HANUMAYAMMA Vs. TADIKAMALLA KOTILINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal mainly raises a question turning upon the application of section 14 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(2.) One V. Subbaiah died in the year 1929 leaving behind him his widow Ramamma and three daughters by name T. Kotamma (D-1) K.China Kotamma (mother of the plaintiff) and G. Bala Kotamma (D-3). The 2nd defendant in the case is the husband of the 1st defendant while the 4 th defendant in the case is the husband of the 3rd defendant. Defendants 5 and 60 are the sons of defendants 3 and 4. The 64th defendant is the daughter of defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants are the alienees either from the 1st defendant or the 3rd defendant or from defendants 5 and 60. The 66th defendant is the alienee of a portion of the suit property from the plaintiff.

(3.) Late Subbaiah executed a will, Ex A-1, on 19-3-1929 and made some further provisions under a Codicil, Ex. A-2 on 9-4-1929. Under this will and codicil, he created a life estate in favour of his wife Ramamma, in respect of an extent of about Ac. 45-00 of land and created a vested remainder, in respect of the said property in favour of his three daughters, in respect of three separate portions of the said extent of Ac.45-00. Ramamma died in the year 1977. So far as the properties which were to devolve on the 1st defendant and 'the 3rd defendant after the life time of Ramamma, there was a settlement and partition between those two daughters and late Ramamma in 1952 under Ex.A-3 and in 1955 under Ex.A-4 respectively and we are not concerned in this suit with the extent of properties which were given as vested remainder to those two daughters viz., defendants 1 and 3. We are, however concerned only with the share which was given as vested remainder, in favour of the plaintiff's mother. China Kotamma who died in the year 1944 and on whose death her vested remainder devolved on the plaintiff: Perhaps, when the settlement and partition took place between the two other daughters and Ramamma, if the plaintiff's mother was alive or, if the plaintiff was a major there could have been a similar settlement whereby the widow could have taken some property absolutely instead of as a life estate and released the remaining properties from the burden of her life- estate, in favour of the plaintiff's mother or the plaintiff. But unfortunately as the plaintiff's mother died in 1944 and the plaintiff was a minor a't the time of the settlement in 1952 and the partition in 1955 such an arrangement could not be entered into. The net result was that while the other two daughters viz., defendants 1 and 3 could secure before 1956 some properties absolutely by having the life estate of Ramamrna released and in consideration conferring absolute rights on Ramamma, in respect of some items covered by the vested remainder of those two daughters, such an arrangement could not be entered into either by the plaintiff's mother or by the plaintiff in respect of this vested remainder for the reasons mentioned above. Consequently while the other two daughters had the freedom to enter into a settlement with the widow Ramamma before 1956 the plaintiff alone was confronted with the situation resulting from the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).