Meenammal would enjoy items 1 2 of the properties mentioned in the will and also 50 cents of land during her lifetime.
Jaimal first executed a will dated 18.12.1935 and by a subsequent will dated 13.11.1937 revoked the first will.
Under the companypromise .decree it was agreed that Smt.
On his death the petitioners before this Court being the sons and daughters of Ramalinga Reddiar Claimed to have become enti tled for all the properties of Ramalinga Reddiar including the rights in the suit property.
The defendant had brought up Ramisetti Koteswar Rao, who is her nephew, from his child hood and performed his marriage.
the first wife Alamolu was living away from her husband.
14 1 and 14 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. In the above appeal and Special Leave Petitions question has been raised about the ambit and scope of Sec.
The High Court by Judgment dated 24.8.1979 allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit with companyts throughout.
By the second will a life estate was given to Nihali and thereafter the property was made to devolve on Bhagtu and Armu companylaterals.
The Trial Court decreed the suit and it was.
Meenammal put obstruction to the legatees in getting possession.
was number happy and companydial.
The defendant preferred a second appeal in the High Court.
2113 of 1980 The suit properties as well as some other properties originally belonged to one Ramalinga Udayar.
Meenam mal having died.,
Before adverting to the legal question, it would be proper to narrate in short the facts of each case.
In this case the companytroversy number raised before us was companysidered in detail.
Meenammal and the respondents for declara tion that the settlement deed exhibit A 10 executed by Smt.
Ramalinga died on 8.7.45 and subsequently his first wife Alamolu was awarded 50 kalams of paddy and a sum Of Rs.250 in cash perannumby way of maintenance.
She would also have an enjoyment of the house site during her lifetime without any right of aliena tion.
Thereafter, the appellant cannot claim the to the properties on the basis of the will executed by the widow Nihali in her favour.
145 Cr.
Meenammal will number enure beyond the lifetime of Smt.
1945 ,bequeathing his properties in favour of his second wife Saraswati for her lifetime and thereafter, absolutely in favour of Siva Subramania.
The case of Mst.
On the death of Jaimal in 1938, properties were mutuated in the name of Nihali Nihali died in 1960/61.
It may be numbered that two Honble Judges, namely, J.C. Shah and A.N. Grover were companymon to both the cases.
A provision was also made for the payment of Rs.68 and a direction to make available 18 kalams of paddy in favour of Alamolu for her lifetime.
Civil Appeal No.
The appellant Mst.
The petitioners in these circum stances have filed the S .L.P. under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, L.P. C No.
Ovi Reddiar executed a registered will exhibit A 4 dated 21.3.1921 bequeathing all his properties including the suit properties in favour of .his mother and sister for their lifetime and thereafter in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar, the two sons of his sister and their issues.
1979 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
Married life between Ovi Reddiar and his wife.
On appeal the High Court modified the decree of the Trial Court and en hanced the maintenance to Rs.480 per annum and directed Siva Subramania the legatee under the will to give one building for the residence of Alamolu.
Meenammal then filed a suit in 1923 praying for a declaration that the will made by her husband was number valid and as such be cancelled and for possession and mesne profits and in the alternative she claimed for maintenance both past and future.
The question involved is whether the life interest in the property acquired by Thota Manikyamma under the will execut ed by her husband and companytinued to be in her possession became her absolute property under Sec.
The plaintiff in these circumstances claimed absolute right in the suit properties after the lifetime of the defendant and challenged the right of the defendant to execute any will in respect of the suit properties.
Ovi Reddiar died in 1922 and thereafter the legatees under the will entered into possession of all the proper ties.
J.C. Shah, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover, JJ.
Meenam mal and the legatees under Sec.
He had two wives, namely, Alamolu and Saraswati.
630 of 1981. ,
J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswamy and A.N. Grover, JJ.
Karmi v. Amru and Others, supra on which reliance has number been placed by Learned Counsel for the appellant and petitioners was also decided by a Bench of three Judges Hon.
Karmi claimed right on the basis of a will dated 25.4.1958 execut ed by Nihali in her favour.
630 of 1981 Thota Madhav Rao, the plaintiff filed a suit against Thota Manikyamma on the allegation that the plaintiffs father Yellamanda and the defendants husband Late Venkata Subbayya were brothers.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners.
Dhanush Koti died unmarried in 1930 but during his lifetime he sold his interest in.
438/79 2113/80.
P.C. which resulted in favour of the legatees exhibit A 1 .
Alamolu settled the suit properties in favour of one Chan drashekhar Udayar claiming title to the same in pursuance to a companypromise in A.A.O. 567 of 1950.
The defendant took the plea that her husband died issueless and intestate and did number execute any will at any time.
Meenammal companytested the suit and took the plea that the limited interest given to her under the company promise decree had become enlarged into absolute right by virtue of Section 14 1 of the Act.
Thereafter in 195 1 Alamolu sought the recovery of possession of one of the buildings and the Executing Court alltted to her the eastern house backyard and the shops.
affirmed in first appeal.
Appellant in the above case was the daughter of Ditta and the respondents were companylaterals of Jaimal.
358 of 1977.
All the earlier cases were companysidered including Badri Prasad v. Smt.
The legal representatives of the plaintiff have companye to this Court by grant of special leave.
The First Appellate Court upheld the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
In the said suit the parties entered into a companypromise and a company promise decree was passed on 5.3.1924, vide exhibit A 1 .
Venkata Subbayya died on 14.1.1932 and before his death he executed a will bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his wife Smt.
Thota Manikyamma for her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff.
The widow died in 1968.The appellant filed a suit for injunction, based on gift deed, against the respondent, another Sister claiming exclusive right, title and interest in the property and also pleaded adverse possession.
A companypromise was entered into between the parties in the High Court.
The petitioners before this Court filed a suit against Smt.
S. Krishnamurty lyer, G. Narasimhalu, G.S. Narayana, Ram Kumar, Mrs. Anjani, Mrs. J. Ramachandran, T.T. Kunhi kannan, S. Srinivasan and A.T.M. Sampath for the appearing parties.
On account of love and affection for him and his children, the defendant executed a registered will on 26.10.69 bequeathing all her properties in his favour The Trial Court held the will dated 14.1.1932 proved and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit property as her absolute property The defendant also executed a registered will on 26.10.69 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of one Ramisetti Koteswar Rao.
As the defendant and her husband had numberissue they brought up the plaintiff as their foster son from the age of eight years and thereafter the plaintiff companytinued to live with them and was brought up treating him as their own son.
There was some criminal litigation between Smt.
During the pendency of the Second Appeal in the High Court the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
the properties in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar.
Special Leave Petition C No.
Ramalinga being attached with one Siva Subramania the petitioner before us executed a will on 2.7.
Ramalinga Reddiar died in 1962.
Meenammal.
The respondent filed a cross suit for partition into two shares and claimed half share pleading that their mother was number in possession of property on the date when the Act came into force.
Saraswati was appointed as his guard ian.
438 of 1979 One Meenammal is the wife of Ovi Reddiar.
In the said will reference was made regarding the companyduct of Meenammal in deserting him and in any event if she changed her mind and agreed to live under the protection of the legatees she was allowed to enjoy the income from item I of the suit properties and that she should companystruct a house in item referred to in the will and to live there during her lifetime and after her death the said Item and the house site .with the house shall go to the above men tioned Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar.
As Siva Subramania Udayar was a minor at that time the second wife Smt.
It was held that she had become full owner of the property in her possession under Section 14 i on the companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act, even though previously she was a limited owner.
In order to ensure the payment of the maintenance and delivery of paddy a charge was also created over the properties to go ultimately in favour of Siva Subramania Udayar.
14 1 of the Act.
Ramalinga did number have any issue from both the wives.
the respondents in this Court preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
WITH S L .P Nos.
The Bench company sisted of Hon.
Neither she number her husband brought up the plaintiff as their foster son number did they educate him.
The second wife saras wati preferred an appeal to the High Court against the above order of the executing companyrt.
Under the terms of said companypromise the execution of the will was accepted and the same was made subject to the terms of the companypromise decree.
This case was also, decided by a Bench of three Judges.
Meenammal during her lifetime executed a settlement deed in favour of the re spendents before this Court giving absolute rights in the suit properties.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 24.8.
