P. Subbamma vs M. Venkatakrishna Rao and Others

Jackson, J.—Respondents are absent and this appeal is heard ex parte. A widow obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 463 of 1914 on the

file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Kavali for arrears of rent and died before executing it. Her son''s daughter claimed to execute it as

succeeding to the estate of the widow''s husband under a will. Her daughter''s daughter claimed to execute it as heir to her private estate arguing

that the money if collected would be part of the income and the widow could treat it as her stridhanam. The District Munsirf accepted this plea,

and the son''s daughter appeals.

In Nabakishore Mandal v. Upendrakishore Mandal AIR 1922 P.C. 39 it has been held by the Privy Council that if the stridhanam was due to

accumulated savings from the income of the property received from her husband''s estate, the widow might so deal with it that it would remain her

own, yet it must be shewn to have been so dealt with. It was held in Madras that the onus lay the other way: Alckanna v. Venkayya (1902) 25

Mad. 351 and this ruling was upheld in Subramanian Chetti v. Arunachalamy Chetti (1905) 25 Mad. 1 where the ruling in Nabhakishore Mandal

v. Upendrakishore Mandal AIR 1922 P.C. 39 seems to have been overlooked. In Baja Rajeswar v. Sundaram Pandayasamy Tevar AIR 1918

P.C. 156 occurs this passage at page 588.

a widow may so deal with the income of her husband''s estate as to make it an accretion to the corpus. It may be that the presumption is the other

way. A case has been cited to their Lordships which seems so to say. But at the outside it is a presumption and it is a question of fact to be

determined if there is any dispute whether a widow has or has not so dealt with her property.

I do not think that this last ruling detracts from the clear ruling in Nabahkishore Mandal v. Upendrakishore Mandal AIR 1922 P.C. 39 and so it

is held in Mayne''s Hindu Law, page 915, 9th Edition.

This view Ahkanna v. Venhayya (1902) 25 Mad. 351 and Subrarnania Chetty v. Arunachalam Chetti (1905) 28 Mad. 1 is no longer tenable.

The bare fact that a widow has obtained a decree for arrears of rent is not proof that she so dealt with the property as to make it remain her

own.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed with costs and the order of the lower Court is reversed.