POOSARLA ACHUTA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the lease and licence in respect of the plaint schedule property (some salt pans) as the legatees under a will executed by one Motamarri Chinna Mahalakshmamma and for the transfer of the said lease and licence in their names. The plaintiffs who lost both in the trial Court and the first appellate Court are the appellants in the second appeal.

(2.) The suit property, viz., the Salt Pans, originally belonged to one M. China Sanyasayya Chetti. Narasimhulu Chetti was his adopted son. Chinna Mahalakshmamma under the will of whom the plaintiffs are claiming the suit property, was the wife of that Narasimhulu Chetti. China Sanyasi Chetti executed a will certified copy of which is Exhibit B-21 dated 12-8-1917 bequeathing the suit property in favour of his daughter-in-law. He died on 6-2-1925. Narasimhulu Chetti died in the year 1929. During her lifetime China Mahalakshmamma executed a will Exhibit A-5 dated 10-3-1964 bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiffs and died on 1-6-1965. The defendants are the agnates of Chinna Sanyasayya Chetty. They contested the suit alleging that China Mahalakshmamma had no rights of bequest in the suit property. The right given to her under Exhibit B-21 will, being the life estate, that right came to an end on her death.

(3.) It is not in dispute that under Exhibit B-21 will Chinna Sanyasayya Chetty gave China Mahalakshmamma a life estate and after her death the property to be reverted back to the collaterals of Chinna Sanyasayya Chetty. But, according to the plaintiffs, the life estate given to China Mahalakshmamma under Exhibit B-21 will become her absolute property on the Hindu Succession Act coming into force by reason of the provision contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of that Act. It is convenient here to extract Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.