KOMATLA RANGA REDDY Vs. GOLLAMOORY VENKATA RAMANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 05. 8. 1999 this Court made the following order:

(2.) THE substantial questions of law specified under Ground No. 4 are as hereunder:

(3.) SRI K. S. Gopala Krishna, representing sri K. Bathi Reddy, counsel for appellants had taken this Court through the substantial questions of law already referred to supra and also taken this Court through the findings recorded in O. S. No. 42 of 1983 on the file of subordinate Judge, Chirala and also in a. S. No. 35 of 1994 on the file of Additional district Judge, Ongole. Learned counsel explained the relationship of the parties and also explained how Kotamma was related to china Chennaiah. The learned counsel would maintain that the status of Kotamma and also the applicability of Section 14 (1)of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) had not been appreciated in proper perspective. The learned counsel also would point out that the Will dated 20. 8. 1922 had been set aside by virtue of judgment made in A. S. No. 19 of 1938 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, bapatla, dated 15. 7. 1940. The said Will was held to be invalid and not genuine. The findings recorded relating to the validity of the Will in Ex. B-4, certified copy of judgment in O. S. No. 19 of 1938 had attained finality. The learned counsel also while making elaborate submissions would maintain that neither specific plea nor specific issue had been settled regarding applicability of section 14 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel also would point out that the findings recorded in the judgment in A. S. No. 19 of 1938 referred to above had not been discussed at all. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to sections 11,12 and 16 of the Hindu Marriage act and also to Sections 14 and 6 of the act aforesaid. The learned counsel also would maintain that when the appeal was pending, the Amending Legislation, Act 39 of 2005 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force. Even in the light of the same, independent coparcenery right of a daughter to be upheld and in that case Section 6 of the Act as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 to be taken as having overriding effect to 14 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to the aspect of pre-existing right, enlargement of the estate and also the meaning of possession and legal possession as well and would maintain that especially in the light of the findings recorded in A. S. No. 19 of 1938 the possession if any cannot be styled as lawful possession or legal possession and hence the findings recorded by the courts below relating to the applicability of Section 14 (1) of the Act are totally unsustainable. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions and would maintain that in the light of the submissions made the appellants are bound to succeed and the second appeal to be allowed.