SAGI SURAYAMMA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one of the claimants in O P. No. 63/60 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, against the order denying her claim with regard to the compensation granted in the Land Acquisition Proceedings.

(2.) Ac. 5-76 cents of land situated in the village of Injaram in Kakinada Taluk was notified and acquired by the Government for the purposes of providing house sites for Harijans of Merakamalapalli village. Out of this, Ac. 0-94 cents at the time of acquisition be. longed to one Surayyamma the second claimant. With regard to the compensation deposited, as her husband's brother Suryanarayana Raju contested her claim, a reference was made to the Land Acquisition Court-cum-Subordinate Judge, K.kinada under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. With regard to the facts of the case, thtre is no dispute. This land acquired, formed part of the lands allotted to her by the court under a compromise decree. She had filed the suit O.S 110/53 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, K.kinada for partition of the plaint schedule lands into seven equal shares and allotting one share to her, contending that the defendants, six in number, and her late husband Chitmamraju are the sons of Sagi Venkatasubharaju and that her husband died in 1943 as a member of the Joint Family leaving behind him herself and a min or son Venkata pathiraju, that in the year 1947 the members of the joint family divided and partitioned their family movables, but the cultivation was being done jointly and income was being divided, she being given 1/7th snare, towards the share of her son, that her son died in October. 1949 intestate, unmarried and issueless and therefore she is entitled to the 1/7rh share as his heir. This suit was contested on the ground that there was no division of the joint family and as such she has no right to claim 1/7 th share as heir to her son. The suit resulted in a compromise, whereunder the plaintiff was given possession of her 1/7th share as claimed by her, but it was stipulated that she shall be in enjoyment of the properties delivered to her having only the rights of a Hindu widow in them and they shall pass to the defendants or their representatives after her death. One other clause added was as follows

(3.) The first contention raised is that the cimpromise decree which is not appealable and which can only be set aside on grounds of fraud and undue influence etc., is binding on both the parties and the second claimant cannot get over the same. This contention overlooks the effect of the subsequent statutory rights acquired by the second claimant under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, inspite of the compromise decree entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act in 1956. If under the decree she acquires a right in the property which fall-? under Section 14 (1) of the Act, her rights get erlarped. The clause relating to herself and the defendants purchasing another property with the amount of compensation, if the land is acquired by Government, of equivalent value and the further clause that she has only the rights of a Hindu Widow in the entire property are all subject to her subsequent rights that she may acquire under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Those clauses were introduced with regard to her rights as they then stood. She cannot be denied the subsequent enlargement of her rights under the statute, Therefore this contention that she is bound by the compromise decree is not tenable.