KODURI MANGAMMA Vs. KODURI SESHAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Senior Widow of late Koduri Narayana for partition of plaint A to D schedule properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and deliver the same with crops on the lands, for payment of the value of half share of the plaint C and D schedule movable in case the movables were not capable of division, for an account of the past income as regards the plaintiff's half share in the properties and for future profits and costs. The Ist defendant in the suit was the junior widow and defendants 2 to 7 were the aliens of portions of properties under sale deeds, Ex-B.4 to B-8 executed by the Ist defendant, the junior widow for herself and as guardian of her two minor daughters.

(2.) Koduri Narayana, the husband of the plaintiff and the Ist defendant died intestate on 9-8-1947 at Nelaturu village leaving properties specified in schedules A to D. The said properties developed on the two widows as heirs. The junior widow has two daughters by late Koduri Narayana. During the life-time of Koduri Naryana, the senior widow Seshamma filed a suit for maintenance in the District Munsif's Court, Kovvur, O.S. 98 of 1937 and obtained under a compromise decree dated 2-9-1937 maintenance payable for her life at the rate of Rs. 60/- per year. Provision was made for her residence in the family house. A charge was created on an extent of Ac. 3-31 cents of land. The senior widow was receiving maintenance accordingly till she filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Kovvur O.S. 72 of 1960 for enhancement of the maintenance awarded to her under the earlier compromise decree alleging that the maintenance was insufficient and that the properties were yielding more income. The plaintiff was awarded enhanced maintenance at Rs. 365/- a year. On appeal, the enhanced maintenance was reduced to Rs. 240/- a year. Subsequently, the plaintiff continued to receive the enhanced maintenance till she filed the present suit in form a pauperis claiming a half share in the properties and profits. She impugned the alienations of portions of plaint A schedule as not binding on her as having been made by the first defendant, the Junior widow without right or authority. She alleged that those documents were sham, collusive and nominal documents and that they did not bind her share of the properties. The plaintiff claimed to have succeeded to the plaint properties along with the Ist defendant and to have been in joint possession of the said properties. Under the provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956) the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to a half share in all the properties with absolute rights.

(3.) The Ist defendant denied the plaintiff's right to claim a half share in the properties. The plaintiff was receiving maintenance granted to her in O.S. 98 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kovvur, and O.S. 72 of 1960 on the said Court's file and the Ist defendant had been in exclusive possession of the properties after the death of her husband, Koduri Narayana in 1947. The suit having been brought beyond 12 years after the date of death of Narayana, was barred by time. The present suit was also barred by the filing of O.S. 72 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsiff, Kovvur. The alienations made were genuine transactions for consideration entered into for the benefit of the estate and to meet the expenses of the Ist defendant's daughter's marriage and cannot be ignored by the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not in any event claim a half share ignoring the alienations without making provision for the marriage expenses of both the daughters.