C. Nagappan JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against order dated 21.9.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, who allowed the appeal preferred by Defendant No. 1 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the original suit preferred by the Appellant.
2. The only question that needs consideration in this appeal is as to whether the High Court is correct in law in interpreting the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') in arriving at a conclusion that the widow of the deceased P. Venkata Subba Rao acquired an absolute interest in the property by the operation of Section 14 of the Act.
3. The undisputed facts are that the said suit property originally belonged to one P. Venkata Subba Rao, who had three wives. Only the second wife was blessed with two sons and one daughter, including Defendant-Narasimha Rao. Veeraraghavamma was the third wife of the said P. Venkata Subba Rao but she did not have any issues. P. Venkata Subba Rao executed a Will in the year 1920(Exh. A2) in favour of his 3nd wife Veeraghavamma who in turn executed a Will dated 14.7.1971 (Exh. B1) in favour of Defendant-Pentapati Subba Rao, and thereafter, she died in 1976. The case of the Defendant is that the said P. Narasimha Rao has no right to transfer the suit properties in favour of the Plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff's-Appellant's case is that he purchased the suit property from one P. Narasimha Rao who was having a vested remainder in respect of the said suit property on the expiry of life estate of testator's wife Veeraghavamma. According to the Plaintiff-Appellant, during the life time of Veeraghavamma she enjoyed the properties and after her death the property devolved upon the vendors of the Plaintiff.
5. The trial court noted the undisputed case of both the parties that Will (Exh. A2) was executed by late P. Venkata Subba Rao in favour of Veeraghavamma but she had limited interest to enjoy the property during her life time and thereafter the remainder vested with P. Narasimha Rao to enjoy the said property as absolute owner after the death of Veeraghavamma. However, the trial court held that life estate of Veeraghavamma under the Will did not become enlarged into absolute estate Under Section 14(1) of the Act and the vested remainder in favour of P. Narasimha Rao did not get extinguished in respect of the scheduled properties. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court Defendant No. 1-P. Subba Rao preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that Veeraghavamma became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) and she had every right to bequeath the said property in favour of P. Subba Rao, the first Defendant under Exhibits B1 and B2.
7. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the Plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, first Defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record and are arrayed in t........