The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed in so far as it related to the cancellation of the deed of settle ment and recovery of possession of the suit properties by way of partition.
1,200 per annum, that is to say, at the rate of Rs.
258 of 1974 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No.
The respondent No.
1 to 7.
A 1 , inter alia on the ground that it was a void document under the Hindu Law.
The suit was companytested by the respondents Nos.
The defendant respondents filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The other respondents adopted the written statement of the Respondent No.
100 p.m. from the date of filing of the suit and creating a charge for the amount of maintenance on the suit properties was upheld by the High Court.
Further, it was held by the Trial Court that even assuming that the deed of settlement was valid and binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to the alternative relief of maintenance and separate residence under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the plaintiffs husband was legally bound to maintain his wife and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce her maintenance claim with a charge on the properties in suit.
Thereafter, she file.1 a suit out of which this appeal arises for partition and recovery of her husbands share after cancelling the deed of settlement Ex.
The High Court, however, did number agree with the finding of the Trial Court that the deed of settlement was void.
But the decree passed by the Trial Court awarding maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The Trial Court, on a companysideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties held, inter alia, that the deed of settlement was void and inoperative under the Hindu Law in the absence of companysent of the other companyarceners.
3 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations.
1,200 per annum towards her maintenance and separate residence with a charge on the A and B Schedule properties of the plaint.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was held by the High Court that the deed of settlement was valid.
It appears that after the death of Rami Reddy, differences arose between his widow and the respondent No.
Rami Reddy died in January, 1965 and shortly thereafter his brother Veera Reddy also died in March, 1965.
In that view of the matter, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.
1, as a result of which the widow of Rami Reddy since deceased demanded a partition of her husbands share which was gifted by her husband to his brother Veera Reddy.
549 of 1969.
G. Prabhakar and G. Narsimhulu for the Appellant.
Two brothers, Rami Reddy and Veera Reddy and the sons and daughters of the latter being re spondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. The only point that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether a gift by a companyarcener of his undivided companyarcenary interest to another companyarcener is void or number.
S. Krishnamurthy.
The suit was, accordingly, decreed by the Trial Court.
2 to 7 herein, companystituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
In order to companysider the point it is necessary to state a few relevant facts.
P. Rao, T.C. Gupta and G.N. Rao for the Respondents.
On May 4, 1959, Rami Reddy executed a deed of settlement Ex.
A 1 in favour of his brother, Veera Reddy, companyveying his entire undivided interest in the companyarcenary reserving a fife interest to himself and also providing that after his death, his brother should maintain his wife.
