KISHTA BAI Vs. RATNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the quantum of share to which a wife is entitled to, in this State, in a partition of Hindu Mitaksbara joint family properties, after the death of her husband intestate, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force? That is the main question that falls for consideration in this appeal. I will only state the facts to the extent they are necessary for deciding the questions raised in this appeal. The plaintiff is the appellant. She is the first wife of Lachma Reddy. The 1st defendant is his second wife, the 2nd defendant is the unmarried daughter, and the 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff. She is married. The 5th defendant is the mother of Lachma Reddy. Lachma Reddy died in July, 1967. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and for separate possession of her l/6th share in those properties. 'A' schedule properties are lands at Amdapur, Manthani and Pipri; 'B' schedule is a house and shop at Manthani; and 'C' schedule is cash and Life Insurance Policy amount. Her case is that they are the self-acquired properties of late Lachma Reddy. The 1st defendant contended that they are the joint family properties of Lachma Reddy; besides she stated that survey number 212/4, 5, 6 and 7 of Amdapur village, and survey number 94 of Manthani village of Armoor Taluk, which were not included in the plaint schedule, were also the joint family properties and liable for partition. In addition, she claimed that Rs. 20,000/-should be provided for the marriage expenses of the 2nd defendant. The learned Subordinate judge, on a consideration of the evidence, found that the plaint schedule properties were joint family properties, but not the self acquired properties of late Lachma Reddy, that the lands at Amdapur and Manthani villages mentioned in the written statement, were also joint family properties liable for partition, that Rs. 14,000/-should be provided for the marriage expenses of the 2nd defendant, and that the share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties was l/20th but not l/6th. In this appeal, it is submitted by Sri B. Anjaneyulu the learned counsel for the appellant, that the plaint schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Lachma Reddy, but not the joint family properties. Lachma Reddy was the Asaldar Mali Patel of the village getting a salary of Rs. 33/-per month and Rs. 300/-a year on revenue collections. He was also doing abkari and beedi leaves contracts now and then. The evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 6 shows that Lachma Reddy inherited about 30 acres of wet land and a bouse from his father, that he sold them and purchased the suit lands, and the only ancestral property left unsold is about 11/2 acres of wet land at Manthani village. The plaintiff had deposed that she was not aware of the extent of the land her husband had inherited from his father, nor as to how and when her husband had acquired the suit lands. The income received by him as Mali Patel was meagre and it would have been hardly sufficient to maintain his family. It is true that he was doing some contracts now and then, but we have no evidence as to the income be had received from them. There was sufficient nucleus of joint family property inherited by him from his father. In these circumstances T have no hesitation in holding that the suit properties are the joint family properties, but not the self-acquired properties of late Lacbma Reddy. Tt was submitted that the lands in survey number 212/4, 5, 6 and 7 of Amdapur village, and survey number 94 of Manthani village of Armoor Taluk were given on patta to plaintiff's brother, Ganga Reddy as a political sufferer and, therefore, they could not form the subject matter of partition. But, there is evidence to show that they are the properties of Lacbma Reddy. Pahanies, Exs. B-2, B-3 and B-5 mention that Lachma Reddy was the pattadar and was in possession of survey number 94 of Manthani village. Ex. B-4 is the Kbasra Pahani of Amdapur village for 1954-55. It shows that Lacbma Reddy was in possession of survey number 212/4 and 5. Exs. B-7 to B-11 the pahanies for 1963 to 1968 mention that Lacbma Reddy was the pattadar and in possession of survey number 212/4 and 5. Exs. A-11 and A-12, the pahanies for 1968 to 1970 show that Lachma Reddy was the pattadar and was in possession of survey nuber 212/4 and 5. Exs. A-3 the pahanies mention that Lachma Reddy was in possession of survey number 212/6 and 7 by virtue of his purchase. Ex. B-12 is the sale deed under which Lacbma Reddy purchased survey number 212/6 & 7 from Ramachandrareddy & Ganga Ram. Ramachandra Reddy as D.W. 5. and one of the attestors, Venkatanarasaiah as D. W. 7 speak to the purchase. This evidence establishes that Lachma Reddy was the owner of survey number 94 of Manthani village and survey numbers 212/4, 5, 6 and 7 of Amdapur village. In fact, in this appeal Ganga Reddy had filed a petition to implead him as a party to this appeal, but I had dismissed it, If he is the owner of these porperties, he is not precluded from pursuing the remedies available to him, to establish his rights. Next, it was submitted that the provision of Rs. 14,000/- for the marriage'expenses of the 2nd defendant is exorbitant. When the 4th defendant, the daughter of the plaintiff was married, ten tolas of gold was given to her. D. W. 6 had deposed that considering the status of the family, about Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 30,000/- would be required for her marriage. He bad stated that he had deposited Rs. 16,000/-for the marriage of his eldest daughter. Since the 4th defendant was given ten tolas of gold, naturally, the 2nd defendant also should be given the same gold. Its value was esti mated at Rs. 5,000/-by the learned Subordinate Judge. The other expenses were estimated by him at about Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. He gave Rs. 14,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, I do not consider that the provision of Rs. 14,000/- for marriage expenses of 2nd defendant is excessive. Lastly, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurupad vs. Hirabai the learned counsel for the appellant contended that if Lachma Reddy effected a partition during his 'lifetime, he would have got one share, his son, Ganga Reddy (3rd defendant) one share, and his two wives (Plaintiff and 1st defendant) together would have got one share, and after the death of Lachma Reddy, his l/3rd share should be divided into five shares between his son, two daughters, mother and two wives together. So, putting together l/3rd and l/5th shares, both the wives get 2/5th share and the share of the plaintiff would be I/10th share. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which applies to devolution of interest in coparcenary reads as follows: