Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1251 (AP)

B. Narayana Reddy v. B. Obulamma

2023-08-31

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 6/8/2018 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's and STs (POA) Act -VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 4/12/2012 in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu (for short "the trial Court"). 3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, in A.S.No.40 of 2013 (for short "the first appellate Court"). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the plaintiff by name Pedda Ramanna and the husband of 1st defendant namely Chinna Ramanna are own brothers. Both Pedda Ramanna and Chinna Ramanna are no more. The mother of the plaintiff by name Naramma died on 17/3/2006. The plaintiff is sole legal heir of his parents. After the death of Chinna Ramanna, the 1st defendant has executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the plaintiff and his mother on 15/4/1953. After the death of 1st defendant the property devolved on the plaintiff. The 1st defendant had only limited right over the suit schedule property and vested rights in the property. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff and his mother vide OP No.93 of 1957 on the file of Sub Ordinate Judge, Ananthapuramu. At that time, the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.11, 000.00 from the plaintiff's mother and not pressed the said suit accepting the limited rights in her favour, as the entire amount could not be paid at a time a pronote, dtd. 12/2/1958, which was executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant. Subsequently, she discharged the said amount and made an endorsement of the said promissory note. Before filing of the suit, the 1st defendant executed a nominal deed in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in order to give trouble to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant has no right to sell the said property in favour of the 2nd to 4th defendants in view of the relinquishment deed. Before filing of the suit, the 1st defendant executed a nominal deed in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in order to give trouble to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant has no right to sell the said property in favour of the 2nd to 4th defendants in view of the relinquishment deed. After coming to know about the alleged deed, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 12/2/1958. In spite of notice, the defendants are claiming untenable rights in the schedule property. The 1st defendant is still continuing in possession of the said property. 5. The defendants filed separate written statements and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the 1st defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period to the knowledge of everybody including the plaintiff and his mother. The defendant never executed relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 and not received amount of Rs.11, 000.00 and not pressed the suit and relinquished the suit scheduled properties. The alleged cash transaction under promissory note, dtd. 19/2/1958 and endorsement, dtd. 25/5/1958 was not that of the 1st defendant. The alleged relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 said to have been executed by Chinna Naramma W/o Chinna Ramudu in favour of plaintiff and his mother discloses that Chinna Naramma has given limited rights in A schedule properties which includes plaint schedule property in recognition of preexistence of maintenance. It is further stated that the 1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed, dtd. 22/1/2007 and delivered the possession of the property in their favour and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and their names were mutated in the revenue records also. It is further submitted that the suit is not maintainable. 6. Further, mere declaration without consequential relief available at the time of filing of the suit under Sec. 34 of Specific Relief Act and the 1st defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of alleged relinquishment deed till she sold the property to defendant Nos. 2 to 4. 2 to 4. The defendants have purchased the plaint schedule property from 1st defendant under a registered sale deed, dtd. 22/1/2007 and took possession of the property on the date of sale deed. The revenue authorities cancelled the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the plaintiff and issued fresh pattadar pass book in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It is mainly stated that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is devoid of merits and there is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 7. The plaintiff filed rejoinder while denying the contents made in the written statements, contended that the 1st defendant raised a plea that she is not a party to the Relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 and it is not executed by her, having taken such a plea, it is not opened to her to claim the benefits under the said document. The operations of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for short "the Act") the limited rights have been enlarged in to full and absolute rights is not correct. The conduct of the defendant No.1 after the Act clearly shows that she has confined her rights to a limited estate and did not claim any absolute right over the property. She filed O.P.No.93 of 1957 before the Court of Subordinates Judge, Ananthapur and she has not pressed the same on 12/2/1958 after passing of the Hindu Succession Act restricting her rights, she has got only limited right in the property and she cannot claim absolute right over the schedule properties under the provisions of the said Act. 8. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues as under:- 1. Whether the Relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 is true, valid and binding on 1st defendant? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether D1 is competent to execute any sale deed infavour of D2 to D4? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? 6. To what relief? Additional Issues: Whether the alleged limited rights of defendant be/has been enlarged into full and absolute rights as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 9. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? 6. To what relief? Additional Issues: Whether the alleged limited rights of defendant be/has been enlarged into full and absolute rights as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. 10. Basing on the material available on record and after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.40 of 2013 before the first appellate Court. 11. On considering the submission of both counsels, the first appellate Court has framed the following points for determination: i). Whether the limited rights of 1st defendant has been enlarged in to a full and absolute rights as per Sec. 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if so, the Relinquishment deed/Ex.A1 dtd. 15/4/1953 in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff is binding on the 1st defendant? ii). Whether the 1st defendant is competent to execute sale deed/Ex.B.1, dtd. 22/1/2007 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4? iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction? iv). Whether the lower Court erred in dismissing the suit in its judgment in O.S.No.83 of 2007, dtd. 4/12/2013? v). To what relief? 12. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, after going through the evidence adduced by both parties and also the material available on record and the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the trial Court Judgment in O.S.No.83 of 2007, dtd. 4/12/2012. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal came to be filed. 13. This Court vide order, dtd. 6/9/2021 Admitted the appeal by considering the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the facts of the case, the Courts below are right in holding that Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies and that the limited right of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property enlarges into an absolute right? 2. 6/9/2021 Admitted the appeal by considering the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the facts of the case, the Courts below are right in holding that Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies and that the limited right of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property enlarges into an absolute right? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the 1st defendant having taken both movable and immovable properties and having relinquished her limited right over the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant and her mother under relinquishment deed Ex.A1 dtd. 15/4/1953 as well as Ex.A6-Pronote dtd. 12/2/1958 and Ex.A7-discharge endorsement dtd. 28/5/1958 on Ex.A6, she can claim enlargement of her limited interest into an absolute one under Sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act? 3. Whether the Courts below are right in disbelieving Ex.A1 dtd. 15/4/1953, though the said document is registered document and more than 60 years old and enquiries no further evidence to prove the same in view of the provisions of the Evidence Act? 4. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in dismissing the amendment application filed by the appellants in A.S.No.40 of 2013?" 14. Heard Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents. 15. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellate Court did not frame points for consideration with regard to validity of Ex.A1. Hence, it should be taken that the validity of Ex.A1 was not a lis between the parties. It is also relevant to mention that some discussion with regard to Ex.A1 was made under the points for consideration with regard to Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and a finding is given that it is doubtful. The substantial question of law arising for consideration is whether Ex.A1 finding which was left open and is a basis for further argument on Sec. 14 could be considered as proved by plaintiff on admitted facts and legal consequence of Sec. 90 of Evidence Act? He further argued that Ex.A1 is valid being a registered document, which is 30 year old, under Sec. 90 of the Evidence Act, what are the transactions which are made under the said document. He further argued that Ex.A1 is valid being a registered document, which is 30 year old, under Sec. 90 of the Evidence Act, what are the transactions which are made under the said document. Though there is an amendment to the plaint with regard to title of the document and the purport of document, the reading of the document shows the following transactions: (a) A relinquishment of full rights of ownership by D1 for consideration of Rs.900..00 (b) Settlement of dispute of full rights in the property contended by D1 and limited right contended by plaintiff and his mother. 16. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram further submitted that the dispute is resolved to the effect that the 'A' schedule property is dealt with as belonging to D1 and the right in the same are relinquished for consideration which amounts to a sale. Therefore, there is need for registration of the document. Since the document was registered, the title has passed to the plaintiff and his mother. The possession is a permissive possession and is not based on a pre-existing right. Hence, Sec. 14 (1) has no application. 17. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram appearing for the appellants has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Ranvir Dewan Vs. Rashmi Khanna, (2018) 12 SCC 1 . wherein, the Apex Court held in para 40 reads as follows: "40. Reading of the aforementioned principle of law laid down in V.Tulasamma [V. Tulasamma Vs. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99 ] and Sadhu Singh (Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike, (2006) 8 SCC 75 ), it is clear that the ambit of Sec. 14 (2) of the Act must be confined to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time as a grant without any pre-existing right, under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award, the terms of which prescribe a "restricted estate" in the property. Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu female at a partition or in lieu of right of maintenance, it is in virtue of a preexisting right and such an acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of Sec. 14 (2) of the Act, even if the instrument, decree, order or award allotting the property prescribes a "restricted estate" in the property." 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that defendant No.1 could not have passed on title which she had already alienated without nullifying or cancelling Ex.A1 in a process known to law, irrespective of the fact that whether 14 (1) applies or not. Hence, the substantial question of law on which the second appeal shall be allowed is whether at the commencement of the Act No.30 of 1956, whether D1 had and subsisting right, title or interest or right to possession for Sec. 14 (1) of the Act to apply? 19. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel mainly relied on Sec. 14 (1) of the Act, and submits that, when the possession is a permissive possession based on a concession in the contract or permission under the contract and not on a pre-existing right. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the appeal on the above substantial questions of law. 20. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana, appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent/1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period to the knowledge of everybody including the appellant/plaintiff and his mother. The respondent never executed relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 and not received an amount of Rs.11, 000.00 and not pressed the suit and relinquished the rights over the suit schedule properties. He further submitted that in view of the operation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the limited right has been enlarged in to full and absolute rights. The 1st respondent/1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents No.2 to 4/defendant Nos.2 to 4 under registered sale deed dtd. 22/1/2007 and delivered the possession of the property in their favour and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. 21. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in V.Tulasamma and others Vs. Sesha Reddy (dead) by L.Rs., .00 (1977) 3 SCC 99 . wherein, the Apex Court held in para No.13 as follows: "13. 21. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in V.Tulasamma and others Vs. Sesha Reddy (dead) by L.Rs., .00 (1977) 3 SCC 99 . wherein, the Apex Court held in para No.13 as follows: "13. Similarly Mulla in his book Hindu law, 14th Edn., describes the incidents and characteristics of Hindu wife's right to maintenance and observes thus at P.597: "A wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or not when a man with his eyes open marries a girl accustomed to a certain style of living, he undertakes the obligation of maintaining her in that style. The maintenance of a wife by her husband is a matter of personal obligation arising from the very existence of the relationship, a quite independent of the possession by the husband of any property, ancestral or selfacquired. We might further mention that the Hindu women's right to maintenance finally received statutory recognition and the entire law on the subject was consolidated and codified by the Hindu Married Women's Right to separate maintenance and residence Act, 1946 - herein after referred to as "the Act of 1946" - which came into force on April 23, 1946. Thus, there appears to be complete unanimity of the various schools of Hindu law on the important, incidences and indicia of the Hindu women's right to maintenance which has now received statutory recognition and which only shows that the right to maintenance though not an indefeasible right to property is undoubtedly a pre-existing right. We shall now refer to some of the authorities which have dealt with this aspect of the matter." 22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents further placed reliance on another Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court reported in Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar and others, (2022) 4 SCC 274 . wherein it was held at paragraph No.33, as under: In the light of the aforesaid passage, Ss. 14(1) and 14(2) of the said Act were entered by the Court. The word "possessed" was held to be used in a wide sense not requiring a Hindu woman to be an actual or physical possession of the property and it would suffice if she has a right in the property. The discussion in para 33 thereafter opines that the intention of the Parliament was to confine sub-sec. The word "possessed" was held to be used in a wide sense not requiring a Hindu woman to be an actual or physical possession of the property and it would suffice if she has a right in the property. The discussion in para 33 thereafter opines that the intention of the Parliament was to confine sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the said Act only to two transactions, viz., a gift and a will, which clearly would not include property received by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance or at a partition. The intention of the Parliament in adding the other categories to sub-sec. (2) was merely to ensure that any transaction under which a Hindu female gets a new or independent title under any of the modes mentioned in Sec. 14(2) of the said Act. The conclusions were thereafter set forth in para 62 of the judgment as under: "62. We would now like to summarize the legal conclusions which we have reached after an exhaustive considerations of the authorities mentioned above; on the question of law involved in this appeal as to the interpretation of Sec. 14(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956. These conclusions may be stated thus: (1) The Hindu female's right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife and is recognised and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law and has been strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurists starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu. Such a right may not be a right to property but it is a right against property and the husband has a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the family has property, the female has the legal right to be maintained there from. If a charge is created for the maintenance of a female, the said right becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate, even without a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognising such a right does not confer any new title but merely endorses or confirms the pre-existing rights. (2) Sec. 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have been couched in the widest possible terms. At any rate, even without a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognising such a right does not confer any new title but merely endorses or confirms the pre-existing rights. (2) Sec. 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have been couched in the widest possible terms. And must be liberally construed in favour of the females so as to advance the object of the 1956 Act and promote the socio-economic ends, sought to be achieved by this long needed legislation. 23. Learned Senior Counsel while relying on the above decision, submits that as per Sec. 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, "any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner." Explanation: In this sub-sec., "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stringhalt immediately before the commencement of this Act." Learned Senior counsel for the respondents further submits that, as per the wording of Sec., any property be possessed by a Hindu female. Admittedly, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by the date of Act coming into force. The words 'whether acquired before or after commencement of the act', admittedly she had acquired the rights under Ex.A1 prior to commencement of the Act in the year 1953 itself. Therefore Sec. 14 is aimed at removing the restrictions or limitations on the right to a female Hindu to enjoy, as a full owner property possessed by her so long as her possession is traceable to a lawful origin, that is to say, if she has a vestige of a title. It makes no difference whether the property is acquired by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever. It makes no difference whether the property is acquired by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever. He further submits that the right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance. Hence two things are required under Sec. 14(1) of the Act, the appellant must have a legal right to the possession of the property and she must have in possession of the property either actually or constructively. 23. On a perusal of the material available on record along with the impugned judgments, this Court observed that the relationship between the parties are not denied by the parties that the husband of 1st respondent Chinna Ramanna and father of appellant i.e., Pedda Ramanna are brothers and they are no more. The appellant is the only son of his parents. The mother of the appellant died on 17/3/2006. The plaint schedule properties fell to the share of Chinna Ramanna in the partition held in the year 1953. After death of Chinna Ramanna, 1st respondent entered into the possession of the properties as owner and possessor of the properties. Subsequently 1st respondent executed the alleged sale deed in favour of the respondents No.2 to 4 under Ex.B1. Ex.A1 is with a nomenclature as "Regd. Relinquishment Deed." 24. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, it is noticed that Ex.A1 is titled in Telugu as "Jeevanamsapu Hakku Vidudala Dastaveju" and 1st respondent executed the document in favour of the appellant being minor represented by his mother as guardian and also in favour of his mother. But the 1st respondent in her pleadings and evidence denied the said execution of the document. Admittedly, D.W.1 is an illiterate and a marks woman. In Ex.A1 at the bottom of each page it is mentioned as "Ee geetu Bommireddi Chinna Naramma nisani" (in Telugu). But the 1st respondent in her pleadings and evidence denied the said execution of the document. Admittedly, D.W.1 is an illiterate and a marks woman. In Ex.A1 at the bottom of each page it is mentioned as "Ee geetu Bommireddi Chinna Naramma nisani" (in Telugu). The said document executed with the name of Chinna Naramma, but initially 1st respondent's name mentioned in the short cause title and long cause title of the suit as "Obulama", but subsequently, the pleadings were amended and alias name of Chinna Naramma introduced, but no documentary proof relied by the appellant that the 1st defendant's name was changed at the time of marriage as Chinna Naramma and also she used to call as "Chinna Naramma" apart from Obulamma. 25. A perusal of the evidence of P.W1 and D.W1 coupled with the recitals of Ex.A1 document, it clearly shows that each page of Ex.A1, which contains three pages and each page does not contain the thumb mark of 1st defendant as a executants, the plaintiff relied on the thumb impression of 1st defendant at time of the identification before Sub Registrar before registering the document, but the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he never called the Registrar from the Registrar office where the document written in the register contains the thumb impression of the 1st defendant on each page or there is any procedure or custom adopted during the year 1953 that the documents are allowed for registration without signature or thumb impression of the executants on each page of the document. 26. Admittedly, as deposed by D.W1 in her evidence, the attestors, scribe and identify witnesses of Ex.A1 are no more and the plaintiff failed to examine the children or close associates of Attestor, scribe or identify witnessed to confront the said signatures on the document are that of the said attestors, scribe and identify witnesses. Since Ex.A1 document does not contain original name of 1st defendant as Obulamma and also each page of the document even at last on the 3rd page at the end of the document does not contain "Thumb Mark" of the executant, the execution of Ex.A1 by 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff and his mother, relinquishing her life interest in the said property vests remainder in favour of the plaintiff and his mother is doubtful. 27. 27. Even assuming for a moment the 1st respondent executed Ex.A1 relinquishment deed in favour of the appellant and his mother, relinquishing her right over the schedule properties, which are in exclusive possession of the 1st respondent/1st defendant as on the date of Ex.A1 i.e., on 17/4/1953 prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. As per the case laws relied by both the counsels mainly in the land mark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a decided case in between Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and other Vs. Vaddeboyine Sesha Reddy, (AIR 1977 SC, 1944). wherein the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench discussed elaborately about the rights of a female Hindu (widow) before and after commencement of the Act relating to the provisions of Ss. 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The same are extracted hereunder; "Sec. 14 (1) of the Act where property is given to a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance under an instrument which in so many terms restricts the nature of the interest given to her in the property and held that Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 14 is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possession by her at the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired and possessed, she would become the full owner of the property." 28. In a case of Pentapati Subba Rao (died) per L.Rs. Vs. Jupudy Pardha Sarathy and others, ( 2007 (1) ALT 278 ). wherein this Court observed at para No.22, reads as under: "Hindu women's right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. If the husband has property then the right of widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it a legal obligation to maintain the widow. If the husband has property then the right of widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it a legal obligation to maintain the widow. Though a widow's right to maintenance is not a right to property but it is undoubtedly, a pre-existing right in property i.e., it is a jus ad rem but not a jus in rem, and it can be enforced by the widow who can get a charge created for her maintenance on the property either by an agreement or by obtaining a decree from the civil Court; that the right of maintenance is a matter of moment and is of such importance that even if the joint property is sold and the purchaser has notice of the widow's right to maintenance, the purchaser is legally bound to provide for her maintenance; that the right to maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu law long before the passing of the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore, a pre-existing right; that the right to maintenance flows from the social and temporal relationship between the husband and the wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a sort of co-owner in the property of her husband, though her co-ownership is of a subordinate nature and that where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband, she is entitled to retain the possession in lieu of her maintenance unless the person who succeeds to the property or purchases the same is in a position to make due arrangements for her maintenance." 29. On a reading of aforementioned principle of law laid down, law relating to interpretation of Ss. 14(1) and (2) of the Act is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. however, the discussion on the interpretation of Ss. On a reading of aforementioned principle of law laid down, law relating to interpretation of Ss. 14(1) and (2) of the Act is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. however, the discussion on the interpretation of Ss. 14(1) and (2) of the Act can never be complete without mentioning the first leading decision of the case of V.Tulasamma (supra 2) Further, it is clear that the ambit of Sec. 14(2) of the Act must be confined to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time as a grant without any pre-existing right, under a gift, will, instrument m decree, order or award the terms of which prescribe a "restricted estate" in the property. Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu female at a partition or in lieu of right of maintenance, it is in virtue of a pre-existing right and such an acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of Sec. 14(2) of the Act, even if the instrument, decree, order or award allotting the property prescribes a "restricted estate" in the property. 30. In the present case, the father of the appellant/plaintiff by name Pedda Ramanna and the husband of 1st defendant/1st respondent namely Chinna Ramanna are own brothers. After the death of Chinna Ramanna, the 1st defendant executed a Registered Relinquishment deed in favour of the appellant and his mother on 15/4/1953. Further observed that, the 1st respondent raised a plea that she is not a party to the Relinquishment deed, dtd. 15/4/1953 and it is not executed by her, having taken such a plea, it is not opened to her to claim the benefits under the said document. The operations of Hindu Successions Act, 1956 the limited rights have been enlarged into full and absolute rights is not correct. The conduct of 1st respondent after the Act clearly shows that she has confined her rights to a limited estate and did not claim any absolute right over the property. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, whatever the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are satisfied and hence this Court is of the view that, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are not proper and liable to be set aside. 32. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed. 32. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed. The Decree and Judgments passed by the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.