Magunta Veeraraghava Reddi and Another vs Magunta Kota Reddi

Abdur Rahim, J.—There are two appeals before us from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Appeal No. 273 is preferred by the

plaintiff and Appeal No. 279 by the defendants.

There were three brothers Rama Reddi, Venku Reddi and Krishna Reddi forming a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff is the son of Venku Reddi.

Rama Reddi left three sons Veeraraghava Reddi, Subba Reddi and Kothandarama Reddi. The defendant is the son of Kothandarama Reddi.

Krishna Reddi when he died left a widow called Akkamma.

The question which we have to decide is whether there was a partition among these three brothers in the life-time of Krishna Reddi himself. The

Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the partition was after his death and we have no doubt that this is a correct conclusion. The oral

evidence on the point is not of very much importance. The question rests upon the document Ex. A. which is a deed of relinquishment executed by

the widow of Venku Reddi the mother of the plaintiff on 4th March 1876 and on a recital in Ex. XXI the will executed by Akkamma on the 31st

October 1912. The recital in Ex. A. is in support of the case of the plaintiff that the partition was after Krishna Reddi''s death. The recital in Ex.

XXI is to the opposite effect but there is no difficulty in holding that that recital is not reliable and cannot be acted upon. The statement in Ex. A.

which was executed nearer the date of partition is far more likely to be correct than what is stated in Ex. XXI. Besides, so far as Ex. XXI is

concerned, the defendant with whom Akkamma was living was interested in having a recital inserted such as that which occurs in Ex. XXI. Ex. H.

shows that on partition in 1866, that is ten years before the execution of Ex. A. itself, Akkamma got one-third share of the family property in lieu of

her maintenance and Venku Reddi who had left his village to settle in his wife''s village called Chintathoppu agreed to relinquish his share of Rs.

This sum of Rs. 600 with the interest thereon was received by the plaintiff''s mother in 1876 when Ex. A was executed. As is evident from the

terms of Ex. A and from the admitted facts of the case Akkamma received one-third share in lieu of her maintenance and it is conceded that on her

death the property would revert to the family, that is to say, the plaintiff and the defendant will have a half-share each in the one-third share which

Akkamma was given in lieu of her maintenance. Venku Reddi''s share was sold to Subba Reddi and Akkamma and under that sale Akkamma

acquired one-sixth of the whole. The question has been raised before us--it was raised also in the Lower Court--whether this one-sixth is to be

regarded as an accretion to the one-third share which she was in possession of in lieu of her maintenance and would go to the family ; or whether it

must be treated as her stridhanam property and as such devolve on her heirs. Upon this point there can be no doubt as to the state of the law in

this Presidency and I think it is covered in its essential aspects by the Full Bench ruling of this Court reported in Subramaniam Chetti v.

Arunachellam Chetti ILR (1904) M. 1. The law as regards accretion to or incorporation with property held by a Hindu female is fully discussed

there and what has been laid down as being the law prevalent in this Presidency is binding upon us. The proposition which is there enunciated is in

these words:--"" Where however what is given is current income not for mere use and return, but for actual consumption, it would be almost absurd

to talk of an intention that there should be any reverter, it being now thoroughly well established that what may have been consumed may be

disposed of by the female as she likes. In such circumstances, whether as a matter of common sense or of legal principle, but one view is possible,

viz., that money so received is the absolute property of the woman descendible as such to her own heirs."" In that case, what the woman enjoyed

was allowance for maintenance in the shape of money and the only difference between that case and this therefore is that here the woman received

maintenance from the income of property which she was in possession of for that purpose. That, however, can make no difference in the

application of the principle which I have just quoted. The property itself which Akkamma was in possession of would revert to the family on her

death. She was entitled to the income in her own right for her maintenance and she was entirely free to use it as she likes. She was possessed of

absolute powers of disposition over the whole of that income and when she died the property itself would go, like any other property which

belonged to her absolutely in her own right to her heirs. Much reliance has been placed before us on the well-known ruling of the Privy Council in

Isri Dutt Koer v. Hansbutti Koeraini ILR (1883) C. 324 P.C. which has been considered in Subramaniam Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetti and

Akkamma v. Venkayya ILR (1901) M. 351. The proposition which is enunciated in the Privy Council decision, is that when a widow receives

income from the estate inherited by her from her husband, that income unless she has spent it belongs to her husband''s estate. Whether we regard

this as a dictum as suggested or not, this Court has consistently refused to extend it any further than the circumstances with reference to which the

proposition was laid down. In the present case we are not concerned with the savings of the income of an estate held by a Hindu widow and I see

no necessity or any good reason for extending what has been stated with reference to the income of property bought with such savings to a case

like this, where the woman held the property, the destination of the savings of which is in dispute, solely for purposes of her maintenance.

It has been argued that the recital in Ex. XXI, that is the will of Akkamma, shows that one-sixth share which was relin-quished in her favour by

Venku Reddi''s widow was incorporated by her with the one-third which was given to her for maintenance. The recital is that, as a matter of fact,

the entire property belonging to the defendant''s branch of the family was enjoyed by the defendant and she had no share in it either by purchase

from Venku Reddi''s widow or by partition after Krishna Reddi''s death. That is an untrue recital. It is impossible for me to conceive, how from it

any inference can be drawn that she meant to incorporate this property with the one-third share which she enjoyed for maintenance. The doctrine

of incorporation or what perhaps is more accurately described as accretion so far as the property acquired by a Hindu widow is concerned has

been fully considered by this Court and also by the Privy Council not only an Isri Dutt Koer v. Hansbutti Koeraini ILR (1883) C. 324 but in

(1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 256 (Privy Council) and Sandomani Dassi v. The Administrator General of Bengal ILR (1892) C. 433, The proposition laid in

Isri Dutt Koer v. Hansbutti Koeraini ILR (1883) C. 324 is to the effect that whatever property is bought by a Hindu widow out of her savings

from her husband''s property is presumed to belong to the estate, but it is open to her to treat that property as her own and if she expresses that

intention either by words or by conduct then it will no longer belong to the husband''s estate but would be regarded as her own stridhanam

property. It may be doubtful, having regard to the full Bench ruling in Subramaniam Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetti ILR (1904) M. 1 and the ruling

in Akkamma v. Venkayya ILR (1901) M. 351 which I have already mentioned, whether this presumption holds good in this presidency. But

whatever the presumption in the case of property bought by a Hindu widow out of the income of her whole property may be, I do not find any

authority for extending such a presumption to the case of properties bought by a Hindu female not holding a similar estate. On the other hand, the

case reported in (1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 256 (Privy Council) . is authority for the contrary proposition. There also"" a Hindu female was in enjoyment of

certain property for her life and it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council, ""According to this construction she would have the power of

making whatever use she chose of the proceeds of the estates and if she bought land or personal property with them, that land and that property

would be hers and would devolve on the defendants who represent her "". The construction alluded to was of a document by which the lady in

question received the property, in the nature of a family settlement giving to her an estate for life with power to appropriate the profits, the

remainder being vested in some other person on her death. The case reported in Sandomani Dassi v. The Administrator-General of Bengal ILR

(1892) C. 433 s.c. L.R. 20 IndAp 12 also supports this proposition. The result of the authorities is that there is no reason for holding that when a

Hindu female receives property for her maintenance and out of the savings from the income of that property she buys other property, the property

so purchased would not belong to her in her absolute right and descend upon her heirs, but revert to the family on the same basis as the property

which she held for her maintenance. In such a case there is really no question of reverter or accretion. The Subordinate Judge is not right,

therefore, on this point and the one-sixth which was acquired by Akkamma from Venku Reddi must be held to go to the plaintiff as the nearest heir

on Akkamma''s death.

The next question that arises in these appeals is as to the genuineness of Ex. XXI the will of Akkamma.

His Lordship next discusses the evidence at length and finds the will to be genuine.

The result will be that Appeal 279 is dismissed with costs. Appeal 273 therefore partially succeeds and the decree of the Subordinate Judge will

be modified so that the plaintiff will have half of one-third plus one-sixth of the entire property instead of what has been given by the Subordinate

Judge. There will be proportionate costs so far as Appeal 273 is concerned. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

I agree and I desire to add only a few words, as regards the one-third share of the plaintiffs'' father acquired by Akkamma and Subba Reddi

jointly under the terms of Ex. A. The suggestion was made in the course of the argument that Akkamma and Subba Reddi took this property as

joint tenants. There is no warrant for this construction and even if that construction is possible the result would be that Akkamma as the survivor of

the two should be entitled to the whole of the property so acquired instead of one-half, It is impossible to treat Akkamma and Subba Reddi as

members of a Joint Hindu family acquiring properties for that family jointly. The more natural and reasonable construction is that she and Subba

Reddi were tenants-in-common of the one-third share acquired under Ex. A. and that Akkamma became the owner of a moiety of that one-third

share.

The next question is as to the nature of the interest possessed by Akkamma in that property. It is reasonably clear that the acquisition was made

out of the income of the one-third, allotted to her originally on account of her maintenance and in which she had a life-interest. She was entitled to

the beneficial enjoyment of the income during her life. That one-third share was not given to her on account of the share of her husband and was

not inherited by her, as the separate property of her husband. The income from the one-third share was absolutely hers and any purchase made out

of that fund would also be absolutely at her disposal. It would be her stridhanam and descend as such on her death. That position is conclusively

established by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Subramaniam Chetti v. Arunachellum Chetti ILR (1904) M. 1 and the same result

follows from the decision of the Privy Council in the case reported in (1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 256 (Privy Council) . Assuming then that when acquired,

it was the stridhanam property of Akkamma the further question is whether she did anything with reference to that property so as to make it

devolve not on her own heirs after her death as stridhanam property, but pass along with the one-third share in which she had only a life-estate. It

was argued that by some conduct of hers, this property which was her stridhanam was incorporated with the one-third in which she had only a life-

estate, i.e., that by some conduct of hers, her absolute interest in this property was cut down to a life-interest. Assuming that that is possible

without a transfer inter vivos or devise by will, in this case there is really no evidence to show that she did anything to convert her absolute interest

into a life-estate. The only evidence to which our attention was drawn is a statement in Ex. XXI, the will executed by Akkamma. In that, she says

that the original one-third and the subsequently acquired one-third were enjoyed as joint family property by Subba Reddi, his brother and his sons

and after the death of the two brothers the son of the last brother Kotta Reddi became entitled to it and was enjoying it. That statement how-ever

is not true and that incorrect recital could not in any way convert her absolute interest into a life-estate. Assuming that she was under a

misapprehension--and that is the utmost we can read into that language--as to the nature of the interest possessed by her at the time of the

acquisition, that cannot cut down her absolute interest into a life-estate. I therefore think that nothing was done by her to convert her absolute

interest into a life-estate so as to make it devolve on her death on the persons who would be entitled to the one-third allotted for her maintenance.

I further doubt whether she could legally have done so. In the case of heritable property vesting in her as heiress of her husband, it is possible

that she might acquire property from out of the income so as to make the after acquisition, an accretion to the original estate. The language used in

some of the cases suggest the possibility of a Hindu widow succeeding to her husband''s estate incorporating properties subsequently purchased by

her out of the income which at the time of the acquisition were at her absolute disposal. In Soudamani Dassi v. The Administrator-General of

Bengal ILR (1892) C. 433 the Privy Council appears to have contemplated the possibility of a Hindu widow, by her conduct or other indication of

her intention, making her absolute estate part of her husband''s estate though it was not in her possession. I am unable to find any case in which the

property which she acquired as her stridhanam, was held to have been incorporated with a life-estate so as to pass it along with the property which

she held for her life. She can no doubt improve the properties in which she has a life-interest, or free it from incum-brances with her own money,

but it is difficult to see how without a transfer, property owned by a Hindu female as her absolute property can be made part of her husband''s

estate or of the property allotted for her maintenance.

In the result I agree to the order proposed.