JONNALA LAKSHMIDEVAMMA Vs. JONNALA VEERA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question with regard to a Hindu widow's right to maintenance out of the family properties after partition has taken place. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit out of which the appeal arises. Her husband died some eight years before the suit. At the time of his death the joint family consisted of the first respondent (the appellant's father-in-law), the second respondent (her brother-in-law), and the third respondent (a son of her deceased husband by a previous wife). On the 20 December, 1925, the appellant made a formal demand for maintenance. The family was still joint, but on the 17 March, 1926, a partition was effected by a registered deed. The partition was no doubt the result of the appellant's demand, but it was a genuine partition. On the death of the appellant's husband his share in the family properties devolved upon the third respondent and as the result of the partition the third respondent obtained what his father would have obtained had he lived. The appellant then filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali, claiming that she was entitled to a decree against all the respondents on the ground that her status as a widow gave her the right to be maintained out of the family estate as a whole and not merely out of that portion allotted to her step-son on partition. The District Munsif found in the appellant's favour and granted her a decree against all the respondents. He held that she was entitled to arrears of maintenance for seven years at the rate of Rs. 60 a year and to the payment of Rs. 90 a year from the date of the suit. In addition he awarded a sum of Rs. 20 for the purchase of utensils and directed the respondents to set aside a portion of the family house for the appellant to live in or to pay her a further sum of Rs. 100. The decree so far as the first and second respondents were concerned was a personal decree, but so far as the third respondent was concerned it was limited to his share in the family properties. The first and second respondents appealed to the District Judge of Guntur, who confirmed the District Munsif's decree with slight modifications. He directed that the sum payable as arrears of maintenance should be calculated at Rs. 60 per year for six years and at Rs. 84 per year for one year and that all the amounts under the decree were to be recovered from the respondents in equal shares. The District Judge also modified the order which the District Munsif had passed with regard to costs. The first and second respondents then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Venkataramana Rao, J., who allowed it. In holding that the third respondent was alone liable the learned Judge followed the decision in Narasimham V/s. Venkatasubbammai, where a Division Bench of this Court (Waller and Jackson, JJ.) held that when the widow of a coparcener sues for maintenance after the family has become divided her claim is enforceable only against the coparcener to whom her husband's share has been allotted. The learned Judge felt unable to accept that decision as embodying the correct statement of the law, but as it was directly in point he felt bound by it, The decision in Narasimham v. Venkatasubbamma (1931) 62 M.L.J. 433 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 752 runs contrary to the decision of White, C.J. and Munro, J., in Subbarayulu Chetti V/s. Kamalavalli Thayaramma and the present appeal, which is an appeal from the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been placed before a Full Bench in order that the conflict may be decided.

(2.) The decision in Narasimham V/s. Venkatasubbamma (1931) 62 M.L.J. 433 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 752 is in accordance with the statement of the law made by Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., in Jayanti Subbiah V/s. Alamelu Mangamma , where he said:When an undivided Hindu family consists of two or more males related as father and sons or otherwise, and one of them dies leaving a widow, she has a right of maintenance against the surviving coparcener or coparceners, quoad the share or interest of her deceased husband in the joint family property which has come by survivorship into the hands of the surviving coparcener or coparceners, and though such right does not in itself form a charge upon her husband's share or interest in the joint family property yet, when it becomes necessary to enforce or preserve such right effectually, it could be made a specific charge on a reasonable portion of the joint family property, such portion of course not exceeding her husband's share or interest therein.

(3.) As authority for this statement Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., gave the Full Bench decision in Ramanadan V/s. Rangammal (1888) I.L.R. 12 Mad. 260 (F.B.). The judgment delivered in that case did not lay down expressly that a widow's right to a charge on the family property should not exceed her husband's interest therein, but it was recognised that she was entitled to a charge on the family property in the hands of her son.