K VARAPRASADA RAO Vs. K CHINNA VENKAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal the important questions that arise for our decision are :

(2.) The material facts relevant for our present purpose are : Late Kota Ramayya had four sons, viz. (i) Venkata Subbayya, (ii) Raghavayya, (iii) China Venkayya (Plaintiff) and (iv) Anjayya and two daughters, viz. (i) Venkatasubbamma and (ii) Adi Lakshmamma. Adi Lakshmamma, the younger sister of the plaintiff, lost her husband at an younger age even before she joined her husband and she has no property from her husband's or father-in-law's side to depend upon for her main tenance. Therefore, from the time of her widowhood she was living with her father and after his death with the brothers. The four brothers on 1-4-1939 entered into a partition agreement under Ex. A-6 and at about that time the suit property was given to Adi Lakshmamma to be enjoyed for her life time and possession was also delivered to her agreeing to execute a formal settlement deed in her favour. Accordingly on 21-7-1940 the four brothers executed the registered settlement deed, Ex B-1, the material portion of which reads :

(3.) It is, thus, crucial to notice that the settlement deed, Ex. B-1, is one executed in 1940 prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; and it is only in view of this the question of liability of the brothers to maintain their destitute widowed sister, as framed supra, has arisen for our decision. The need for making reference to the date of settlement deed, we should clarify, is that, had it been subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, section 22 thereof would have clinched (he issue.