M P OBANNA Vs. K B ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are defendants in the trial Court. They have challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 19-2-1988 passed in AS 137 of 1982. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Rayadurg, dated 31-3-1982 passed in OS 40 of 1981 and consequently decreed the plaintiffs suit for partition and for separate possession. It is in these circumstances, the defendants have approached this Court. I will be referring to the parties as per the ranking assigned in the trial Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, strenuously submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside, both on question of fact and law. He further submitted that the plaintiff could not derive any title to the property after the death of her father Obanna (alias Obulesappa) in the year 1941. He further submitted that wife of Obanna by name Nagamma also admittedly died in the year 1950 very much prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. In these circumstances, the plaintiff could not succeed to the property since the entire property, according to Hindu Law, went to the branch of Narasimhappa, by survivorship and succession. Therefore, plaintiffs suit could not have been decreed for partition.

(3.) Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents contended that the appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit. He elaborated the argument contending that Obanna died in the year 1941 and after his death, his wife Nagamma had rights under Hindu Women's Right to Property Act (ActNo.8 of 1937). Consequent to her death in year 1950, the plaintiffs succeeded to her property to the extent of the share of Obanna. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submitted that the appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.