Pamulapati Venkata Subbamma, Rep. by her G.P.A. Holder, N. Ankappa Chowdary Vs Gogineni Veeraiah ( Died) and Smt. Dasari Mangamma and Others

Bilal Nazki, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel for the parties. Two suits were tried together by the trial Court being O.S. No. 194 of 1997 and O.S. No. 294 of 1989. Suit being O.S. No. 194 of 1987 was filed for grant of letters of administration in favour of the 1st plaintiff authorizing him to administer the estate of the deceased Gogineni Chinnamayi. O.S. No. 294 of 1989 was filed for a declaration that all the plaint schedule properties, movable and immovable, belonging to the trust created by Gogineni Chinnamayi be given in possession to the plaintiff in accordance with a will and testament dt. 24.7.1983. Both the suits were tried together.

2. Shorn of the details, the facts relating to filing of both the suits are that one Gogoneni Chinnamayi who was the wife of late Venkattappaiah Chowdary died intestate. The property left behind by her became the bone of contention between her own relatives and the relatives of her husband. On the one hand the property was claimed by Venkattappaiah Chowdary''s brother and his sister and on the other hand, the property was claimed by Chinnamayi''s own brother''s wife. Chinnamayi''s brother''s wife put up a will stating therein that Chinnamayi had created a trust and she had appointed trustees including her brother''s wife and one K. Venkatramana. This will was not believed by the trial Court and Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly conceded that the will could not have been believed as no such will was ever produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the Court does not want to proceed with the appeal being CCCA No. 54 of 1994 and the decree in O.S. No. 294 of 1989 becomes final. The said appeal is accordingly dismissed.

3. Now the only appeal which remains before us is CCCA No. 46 of 1994 which arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 194 of 1987. This suit was filed by Chinnamayi''s husband''s brother and sister claiming the property of Chinnamayi on the basis of rights available to them in terms of the provisions of Hindu Successions Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). This is resisted by Chinnamayi''s brother''s wife who is the defendant and appellant herein. There is not much of dispute with regard to the facts or with regard to the relationship of the parties with the deceased Cinnamayi. The only question which will have to be decided by this Court is as to who is entitled to the properties of Chinnamayi in terms of Section 15 of the Act. In order to appreciate the controversy, Section 15 of the Act is reproduced below,

"15. General rule of succession in the case of female Hindus:- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,--

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother;

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),__

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."

4. On bare perusal of the section it becomes clear that as regards the females three types of estate are created by this provision with regard to succession of the female Hindus. First type is self-acquired or self-created property of a Hindu female. Second type is the property inherited by a female Hindu from her father''s family including the mother and third type which is created is the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law after the death of a female Hindu. These three types become important for further inheritance of the property. In case of first type, in the absence of husband, sons or daughters, it will devolve on heirs of the husband in terms of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. But in second type if the property has been inherited by the deceased Hindu female from her father or mother, it will devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, upon the heirs of her father, and in third type if the property inherited by a female Hindu is from her husband or father-in-law, it shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon the heirs of the husband.

5. Admittedly in this case the lady Chinnamayi had no children, therefore now the only question which demands an answer is whether the suit property was inherited by Chinnamayi? and if so, from whom?. The defendant''s case appears to have been that the suit property was not directly inherited by Chinnamayi from her father or mother, but the suit property was created out of the funds received by the deceased after selling the properties gifted out to her by her father or mother. The defendant claimed that as early as in 1923 a gift deed was executed in favour of Chinnamayi for a piece of land measuring Ac.7-28 cents situated at Patchala Tadiparru village in Guntur District under Ex.B5. The defendant also claimed that another piece of land was given to Chinnamayi by her mother under Ex.B6 and after selling these properties the suit schedule property was created. Even if one goes by the pleadings and the evidence produced by the defendant, one comes to the only one conclusion that even the inheritance was not claimed by the defendant. The defendant only claimed that the suit schedule property was created out of the funds received by Chinnamayi after selling the properties gifted out to her. So the question would be whether a ''gift'' amounts to ''inheritance'' in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act. The term ''inheritance'' by its literary meaning would mean "receiving something as an heir" and once property is gifted out or received in gift, it cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, said that the property was inherited. Even if a gift by the father to his son, it would remain as gift and would not become inherited property. We are coming to this conclusion on the basis of various judgments of various Courts including this Court. In a judgment reported in Babballapati Kameswararao and Another Vs. Kavuri Vesudevarao, Division Bench of this Court held that the term ''inherited'' u/s 15(2) of the Act does not include acquisition of property under a will. In E. Veeraraghavamma V. G. Subbarao AIR 1976 A P 137 another Division Bench of this Court held that the property which would be the subject matter of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act should be in the same state in which it was inherited. It went further in saying that if the property inherited by a female is later on changed or converted into any other use, it does not remain at all available on the death of such of a person and therefore its devolving back would not arise. In Ayi Ammal Vs. Subramania Asari and Another, the Madras High Court held that if the property is gifted to a female by her parents and the woman died intestate, section 15(1) of the Act will govern the case. Similar views were expressed in the judgments reported in O.M. Meyyappa V. Kannappa AIR 1976 MAD 154 and Jayantilal Mansukhlal and Another Vs. Mehta Chhanalal Ambalal, . Analysing these judgments we feel that once the property gifted out to a female or by way of a will it becomes her own property and this property cannot be treated to have been inherited. There is another angle to look to the problem. For instance, a lady acquires property by way of gift from a third party, that means the property is gifted out to her by a stranger being not her relation, then what would happen to that property if the lady died intestate. The property has to be considered to be the self-acquired property of the lady and it would be governed by Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. For these reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal being CCCA No. 46 of 1994 is also dismissed. No costs.