It is further companytended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 for short the Act , the right of Ramamma over the share retained by her became her absolute property and being the absolute owner of the said share she was entitled to deal with it in any manner she liked and it is in this view of the matter that Ramamma decided to gift the property retained by her to the third daughter, her husband and two sons.
While so dismissing the appeal, however, the High Court granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court solely on the ground that another companynected matter filed by the very same appellant was pending in a civil appeal before this Court, hence, this appeal came to be entertained by this Court.
It was further companytended that the appellant having lost her mother during the life time of Ramamma, was number entitled to a share in the property of Subbaiah as also the appellant had numberright to maintenance from the estate of V. Subbaiah since it was the obligation of her father to maintain her.
The companytesting defendants opposed the suit on the ground that by the Will and the Codicil referred to hereinabove, V. Subbaiah had put his wife Ramamma in possession of his entire property in lieu of her maintenance and the said Ramamma was all along in enjoyment of all the properties so gifted to her.
It is stated that when the appellant was an infant, she lost her mother sometime in the year 1944 and thereafter her grandmother Ramamma brought her up till she was married.
But, as things would have it, at the instigation of the third daughter of Ramamma, the grandmother transferred appellants mothers share by way of a gift deed dated 11.1.1966 thereby depriving the appellant of all her rights in her mothers share of the property.
It is relevant to mention here that the companynected C.A. No.2055/1981 came to be dismissed as withdrawn as having been settled out of companyrt, reserving liberty to the appellant to pursue this appeal without being affected by the dismissal of the said civil appeal.
Her application to sue in forma pauperis having been dismissed, she paid the companyrt fee and the suit came to be re registered as O.S. No.221/79.
An appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial companyrt having failed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in A.S. No.711/85, the appellant preferred LPA No.57/86 before a Division Bench of the said High Court which agreed with the judgments of the companyrts below and dismissed the appeal.
The said suit came to be tried by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, along with another companynected suit being O.S. No.233/81 and by a judgment dated 31.12.1984 the said suit of the appellant came to be dismissed holding that by the Will the testator had bequeathed the suit properties in lieu of maintenance to Ramamma with a life interest in the same and which right of maintenance got enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14 1 of the Act.
Suffice it to say that the appellant herein filed the present original suit for partition of the suit schedule properties as a pauper in O.P. No.91/78 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet.
Still it may number be necessary for us to trace the entire history of this litigation.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. This appeal has had a chequered career.
He bequeathed the suit property by a registered Will dated 19.3.1929 followed by a companyicil dated 9.4.1929.
It is the further case of the appellant that though Ramamma had only a right to manage the suit property during her life time, she in companylusion with the other two daughters of hers entered into a Settlement dated 14.3.1952 and followed by a Partition Deed dated 24.9.1955 whereby she, in accordance with the terms of the Will, transferred the property in favour of the 2 daughters, keeping the share belonging to the appellants mother with herself with an intention of transferring the same in favour of the appellant later.
