The factual score in the Appeal presently before us reveals that one Rosaiah was the owner of a large extent of properties.
In the said suit, nine defendants were impleaded.
In the plaint filed and as the records depict, Venkayamma levelled specific allegations of unchastity against Lakshmamma and companytended that by reason of the fact of leading a life of unchastity, Lakshmamma lost all her rights in her husbands estate.
The facts in the last numbered decision depict that Somasundaram Pillai died in September, 1950.
defendant present out of the silverage given to Late Rosaiya at the time of the marriage shall be developed on the adopted son himself and he himself shall have absolute rights to the said items Admittedly there is numberadoption by Lakshamamma within the period prescribed as companytemplated in clause f above and by reason therefore, Venkayamma the mother, filed a fresh suit OS 93 of 1950 for a declaration that since Lakshmamma failed to take on adoption, as provided by clause f above, she was number entitled to do so thereafter, and for a further declaration that she herself was entitled to adopt a boy.
The last issue of limitation was answered in the affirmative, the plea of adoption was negatived and the Trial Court came to a companyclusion that numbersuch adoption can even be valid also.
The Legatees Sellathachi and another had companye into possession of the properties.
As soon as the adoption takes place, the immovable property mentioned in Schedule II, attached hereto and retained by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant with life interest the 2nd item in its entirety and half of 3rd item mentioned in Schedule III other than the portion necessary for the residence of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant till their life time and the plate and cup being used by the plaintiff and the iron safe, pot and Panakapu Binde being used by the 1st .
Rosaiah executed a will on 11th January, 1937 wherein he bequeathed all his properties to his mother Venkayamma.
Two other issues were raised before the Trial Court namely the issue of adoption of 8th defendant and the suit being barred by the laws of limitation.
The said suit was however dismissed and an appeal being AS No.
In the companypromise memo Lakshmamma has been referred to as the plaintiff, while Venkayamma, the mother as the first defendant.
Factual score further depicts that after the death of Rosaiah, Lakshmamma filed a suit OS No.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 522 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Two specific questions arise for determination in this appeal by the grant of special leave against a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Firstly, whether re marriage of a widow prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would divest her of even the limited ownership of her deceased husbands property, having due regard to the provisions of Section 2 of Hindu Widows Re marriage Act, 1856 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1856 and secondly, whether disqualification of inheritance, if any, by reason of re marriage would stand obliterated by reason of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, 1949.
78 of 1956 even a success in the appeal would number entitle the appellant to adopt.
As a matter of fact in the will he stated that his wife Lakshmamma was number obedient to him and that her father with her aid was trying to knock off all his properties and that his wife was also number living with him.
Schedule Ill companytains three items.
He however in the will provided that, in case his wife was prepared to take a boy of his mothers choice, in adoption, she companyld do so but the boy so adopted should be under the guardianship of his mother until attainment of majority and in that event would be entitled to certain properties as specified in the will.
52 of 1939 for a declaration as regards her entitlement to all the properties of her husband.
The Appellate Court on the wake of the aforesaid, dismissed the appeal.
Janaka Thathachi died in the year 1960.
344 of 1953 was preferred to the High Court against the dismissal of the suit No.
In 1969 as the records depict, the present suit O.S. No.
1st defendant is Lakshmamma while defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded on the ground that they have been inducted into possession of the B schedule properties in suit by the 1st defendant.
Properties mentioned in Schedule 1 were jointly given to both the said ladies with absolute rights.
42 of 1940 .
93 of 1950 .
The appeal before the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was preferred only by the 3rd plaintiff in the suit being the adopted son of Venkayamma.
Clause f of the said memo of companypromise provided as follows The 1st defendant is agreeable that plaintiff shall companytinue the lineage of late Rosaiah by adopting a boy of her choice within 7 years from number, from the family of Velamuri people or from the family of any other person of the same Gotram or from out of the boys of her younger sister as provided within the will executed on 11.1.1937 by the late Rosaiah and receiving him as the adopted son of her husband.
While properties mentioned in Schedule II were given to both of them jointly with a life estate only.
Clause a of the said companypromise expressly affirmed the will put forward by the mother, Venkayamma as true and valid and the properties of Rosaiah were categorised into three schedules, appended to the said Memo of companypromise.
44 of 1969 was filed by Venkayamma and her daughter Sitarammamma asking for a declaration of title to the suit properties and for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule A and B and for mesne profits on the ground that since Lakshmamma did number take the adoption and also because of her re marriage in 1953, she had lost all her rights and the same in any event stood forfeited so far as the husbands properties were companycerned and that Venkayamma was otherwise exclusively entitled to the same.
The factual score further reveals that Venkayamma died pending the suit and the 3rd plaintiff was brought on record as her adopted son The 2nd plaintiff Sitharamamma also died after the judgment of the trial companyrt and before the filing of the appeal.
Defendants 5 to 7 were impleaded on the ground that they were the alienees from the first defendant and the 8th defendant was impleaded because he was supposed to be the adopted son of the first defendant, while the 9th defendant was said to be the joint purchaser along with defendants 3 and 4 of some of the suit properties.
Items 1 and 2 were given to the mother, while item 3 was given to the wife.
It appears from the records that there was in fact a companypromise decree between both the mother and the wife of Rossiah which was recorded by the Court on 19th April 1942.
The mother, in her turn, also filed another suit for administration of the estate, on the basis of the will mentioned above OS No.
He died in February, 1937 leaving behind him his wife Lakshmamma and mother Venkayamma.
The facts reveal that the appeal came up for hearing on 8th March, 1958 and it is on the date of hearing companynsel for the appellant Venkayamma companyceded that by reason of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Act No.
Besides, the allegation of re marriage, Venkayamma also attributed unchastity to Lakshmamma.
