SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 202

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, J.M. SHELAT AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal and another, Appellants
Versus
Kumaresan alias Balakrishnan and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1964, D/15-9-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. S. Narasimhan, Advocate, with him) for Appellants: Mr. S. v. Gupte, Solicitor General of India (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi. Advocate with him), for Nos. I and 2 and Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer Advocate. (for No. 3), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, M.S.NARASIMHAN, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.V.Gupta, SARJU PRASAD

Hindu law does not permit a husband to gift ancestral immovable property to his wife, and such a gift is not valid.

Headnote:

HINDU LAW - GIFT - ANCESTRAL IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - GIFT BY HUSBAND TO WIFE - VALIDITY - GIFT BY FATHER-IN-LAW TO DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE - VALIDITY - PIOTUS PURPOSE - MEANING AND SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

Rangaswami Chettiar, a man of considerable property, married four times. His first three wives died without issue. His fourth wife, Supputhayee, was the sister of his second wife, Ammathayee. In February 1949, Lakshmiammal, Rangaswami Chettiar's third wife, gave birth to a son. Rangaswami Chettiar executed a registered deed of gift in favor of Ammathayee of certain immovable joint family property. Lakshmiammal published a notice accusing Ammathayee and Supputhayee of trying to deprive her and her son of their due share in the joint family property. Rangaswami Chettiar sent a notice in reply, accusing Lakshmiammal of leaving him and living a life of promiscuity. Lakshmiammal replied, maintaining that the child was Rangaswami Chettiar's and that he had been poisoned against her by his other wives. Rangaswami Chettiar died in December 1953. Lakshmiammal's son filed a suit for half share in the joint family properties left by Rangaswami Chettiar. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and held the gift deed in favor of Ammathayee to be invalid. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar and that the gift deed in favor of Ammathayee was invalid. The court found that the appellants had failed to prove that Rangaswami Chettiar had no access to Lakshmiammal at any time when the plaintiff-respondent could have been begotten. The court also held that Hindu law does not permit a husband to gift ancestral immovable property to his wife, and that the gift in question was not made for a pious purpose.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar. 2. Whether the gift deed in favor of Ammathayee was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Rangaswami Chettiar based on the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that the appellants had failed to prove that Rangaswami Chettiar had no access to Lakshmiammal at any time when the plaintiff-respondent could have been begotten. 2. The court held that the gift deed in favor of Ammathayee was invalid because Hindu law does not permit a husband to gift ancestral immovable property to his wife. The court found that the gift was not made for a pious purpose, as it was not made to a daughter or a sister at the time of marriage or for charitable or religious purposes.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff-respondent. The court also directed the trial court to correct the decree to bring it into line with its finding on certain items of property.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court and arises in the following circumstances. One Rangaswami Chettiar was a man of considerable property and used to live in Poolathur village. He first married one Bappini and had a son by her. But both the sons and Bappini died. He therefore married Ammathayee who was defendant No 2 in the suit and is appellant No. l before us. He had a son and two daughters by her. But unfortunately all the three children died. Thereafter Rangaswami Chettiar married Lakshmiammal in 1943. She was 1 he first defendant in the suit. It appears that no child was born to Lakshmiammal for about three years and therefore Rangaswami Chettiar married a fourth time. His fourth wife was the sister of his second wife named Supputhayee. In February 1949 Lakshmiammal gave birth to a son. There is dispute as to the question whether Lakshmiammal had left her husband about 1945 or so because of frequent quarrels between the two. Anyhow the fourth wife had also no children. In June 1953 Rangaswami Chettiar fell ill. He was first treated as an in-patient in Batlagundu hospital and later admitted as all in-patient. On June 16, 1933 he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his second wife Ammathayee of certain immovable joint family property. Lakshmiammal when she came to know of this gift published a notice in a newspaper accusing the second and fourth wife of trying to deprive her and her minor son of their due share in the joint family property by having the gift deed executed and claimed that the gift deed was not valid. On September 4, 1953 Rangaswami Chettiar sent a notice in reply to the notice published by Lakshmiammal In that notice Rangaswami Chettiar accused Lakshmiammal of having left him a year and a half after the marriage after quarrelling with him. He also accused her of living a life of promiscuity thereafter. Finally he said in the notice that the son born to Lakshmiammal in February 1949 was not his son. Lakshmiammal gave reply to this notice of Rangaswami Chettiar on September 15, 1953, in which she maintained that the child was Rangaswami Chettiar s. She also claimed that Rangaswami Chettiar s mind had been poisoned against her by his two other wives. She denied that she had any connection with any other man besides Rangaswami Chettiar. In December 1953 Rangaswami Chettiar died.

2. The present suit was filed a year later on January 3 1955 on behalf of the minor son. He claimed half share in the joint family properties left by Rangaswami Chettiar. To this suit the three widows who between them have half share were defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Three other defendants were made parties to the suit to whom we shall refer later as they are not concerned with the main controversy between the plaintiff and the two step-mothers (i. e. second and third defendants).

3. The main defence of the two stepmothers who are now appellants before us, was that the plaintiff though born to Lakshimmal shmiammal was not the son of Rangaswami Chettiar and was therefore not entitled to any share in his properties. Further Ammathayee pleaded that the gift deed in her favour was valid and that even if the plaintiff was the son of Rangaswami Chettiar he would be entitled to half share of the properties other than those gifted to her by Rangaswami Chettiar before his death. There were other issues in the suit, but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal.

4. On the main question, namely, whether the plaintiff was the son of Rangaswami Chettiar, the trial court found in his favour. Further on the question whether the gift deed in favour of Ammathayee was valid, the trial court was of opinion that it was not competent for Rangaswami Chettiar to make a gift of immovable joint family property to his wife. The trial court therefore held the gift to be invalid and gave the plaintiff a decree for his half share in the property left by Rangaswami Chettiar, including the prope



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top