GANTA RAJAMMA Vs. GANTA SIVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narasaraopet is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for partition of A, A-1 and A-2 schedule properties into three equal shares and for possession of one such share to her also for an account of past mesne profits for the last six years, for future profits and for other incidental reliefs. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and it may briefly be stated here. Sivayya the first defendant, was the son of Mallayya. Sivayya, married Kotinagamma, the 6th defendant. The first defendant had three daughters besides a son. The eldest daughter is Lalithamba, 5th defendant. The second daughter is Kotinagamma alias Peddammayi, who died. The last daughter is Raghavamma who is the third defendant. She is married to Nagamallayya, the and defendant. Besides these three daughters, he had one son by name Veera Nagayya. Kotinagamma, the second daughter, died some time before the suit.

(2.) She had three daughters, Nagamma (4th defendant) Rajamma (plaintiff), and Annapoornamma with whom we are not concerned in this proceeding. Rajamma, the second daughter of the deceased Kotinagamma, was originally married to Veera Nagayya, the son of defendants 1 and 6. He however died on 4th May, 1946. That Rajamma is the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is : Her husband Veera Nagayya who was the only son of the first defendant, died as a member of undivided joint Hindu family, being entitled to a share therein. She, as the widow of Veera Nagayya, became entitled to his share by virtue of the provisions of the Hidnu Women's Right to Properties Act, 1937. Since her huband Veera Nagayya died on 4th May, 1946 before that Act became applicable to the agricultural properties, she is entitled to a share only in the non-agricultural properties of the family. First defendant however executed three gift deeds, Exhibits B-18, B-19 and B-20 on I2th August, 1956 in favour of defendants Nos. 5, 2 and 3 and 4 respectively. Later on, on 6th July, 1959, be executed a will Exhibit B-1 bequeathing the rest of his properties to his wife, the 6th defendant. To the extent that these alienations dealt with non-agricultural properties, they are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaint A schedule describes the house properties and other non-agricultural lands of the family, while A-1 schedule enumerates the moveables and A-2 schedule enumerates, the outstandings due to the family. She is therefore entitled to a half share in the A-1 and A-2 schedule properties belonging to the family.