GUDIMETLA VENKATARAZU Vs. BOLLOZU KOTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the appeal must be allowed. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother has prepared and in which he has set out the facts and agreeing in his conclusion I desire only to make a few observations.

(2.) There is no question that a widow is entitled to provide for her own maintenance by alienating a portion of her inheritance, if she cannot provide for it otherwise. The Subordinate Judge holds that a daughter s powers are more restricted apparently because the widow has a claim on her husband s estate during his life-time and a daughter has no such claim against her father once she is married.

(3.) I do not suppose that the Subordinate Judge intended to suggest that it is a rule of Hindu Law that the rights of an heir in the estate of an ancestor to whom he has succeeded, are in direct proportion to his claims against the property during the life-time of the ancestor. My learned brother demonstrates the baselessness of any such idea. I think the Subordinate Judge means rather to suggest that the origin of the widow s succession to her husband is her right to be maintained by him and consequently she has a right to get her maintenance out of the property inherited, whereas the origin of the succession of a daughter to her father is different.