Key Issues:

1. Nature of Property Rights under Section 14(1) and 14(2):

   • Section 14(1) converts the limited estate of a Hindu female into an absolute estate if she is in possession of property acquired in lieu of maintenance, as it recognizes her pre-existing right under Shastric law.
   • Section 14(2), however, provides that if property is granted through a written instrument with a restricted estate, it does not become absolute property.

2. Facts in Question:

   • Absolute Rights: Veerabhadramma was granted 2.09 acres of land, and all courts below held she had absolute rights over this property under Section 14(1).
   • Restricted Life Interest: Over 3.55 acres of land, Veerabhadramma was given life interest only, with a remainder vested in her sons as per the 1933 partition deed.
   • Will Execution: The appellant-defendants argue that under Section 14(1), she became the absolute owner of the 3.55 acres of land as well and was entitled to bequeath it via her Will dated December 30, 1968.

3. Courts’ Findings:

   • Trial Court: Concluded that her rights over 3.55 acres were restricted to life interest per the partition deed, unaffected by Section 14(1).
   • High Court: Upheld the Trial Court's decision, reiterating that the property over which she had life interest was not traceable to her pre-existing right, as required by Section 14(1). The High Court held that the rights over 3.55 acres were newly created under the deed and fell within Section 14(2).

Supreme Court's Analysis:

• Precedents Referred:

  • V. Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddy (1977): Established that maintenance is a pre-existing right under Shastric law, and property acquired in lieu of maintenance becomes absolute under Section 14(1).
  • Raghubar Singh v. Gulab Singh (1998): Emphasized statutory recognition of maintenance as a pre-existing right.
  • Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi (1995): Held that maintenance includes provision for residence and sufficiency of maintenance is crucial.
  • Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987): Clarified that property granted in recognition of maintenance ripens into absolute ownership.

• Findings:

  • Absolute Ownership (2.09 acres): Rightfully vested with Veerabhadramma under Section 14(1), satisfying her right to maintenance.
  • Restricted Life Interest (3.55 acres): A separate and additional right created by the partition deed, not traceable to a pre-existing right. As such, Section 14(2) applied, precluding absolute ownership.
  • No evidence indicated that Veerabhadramma’s maintenance was insufficient or that the 2.09 acres failed to meet her needs.

Conclusion:

The appeal is without merit. The findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court, confirming Veerabhadramma’s limited life interest in the 3.55 acres of property under the partition deed, are upheld. Section 14(1) does not extend to this property as it does not arise from a pre-existing right.

The appellants’ claim that she had the right to bequeath the disputed property via her Will fails. The property must devolve as per the terms of the 1933 partition deed, equally divided among the successors of Kallakuri Swamy.