SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I.D. DUA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Sarupuri Narayanamma and others, Appellants
Versus
Kadiyala Venkatasubbaiah and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No, 1353 of 1972, D/ 4-4-1973.
Property - Claiming possession - Claim separate maintenance - One, a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of-himself and his brothers, died leaving behind him his widow and daughter - Brothers executed a gift deed in favour of widow and her daughter of said one is our sister-in-law and said one elder brother s daughter and court have been living jointly even during life time of said one brother and up till now - So court had as per your wish and that of said ones given in marriage, to nephew - Subsequent thereto, said one being unwilling to remain joint with court represented to us that you would remain separate from said one, to which court had agreed and so on advice given by relations to which both have agreed - It is settled that said one should not in any manner claim any separate maintenance etc. to be given to her during the rest of her life time - Subject to aforesaid terms take possession of aforesaid property and be in enjoyment thereof - Suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by surviving brother of family claiming possession of plaint schedule properties - Whether document having vested an absolute interest, subsequent provision therein would be a restriction which in view of earlier absolute right conferred on her would have no effect – Held, this itself is enough to dispose of the appeal, and question whether document having vested an absolute interest in subsequent provision therein would be a restriction which in view of the earlier absolute right conferred on her would have no effect or whether that would be a defeasance clause, does not really arise for consideration - Both sides have addressed arguments to court on principles of interpretation to be adopted in this case, one side arguing that latter clause is to be deemed to be a defeasance clause and the other side that latter clause is one repugnant to earlier one conferring absolute interest and therefore void, and they have relied upon a number of decisions - In view that court are taking in the matter court consider it unnecessary to refer at length either to the arguments or to the decisions relied upon - In the result court uphold decision of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court and dismiss appeal - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.
2. One Nagaiah, a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of-himself and his brothers, died leaving behind him his widow Raghavamma and daughter Vengatasubbamma. The brothers executed a gift deed on 29th April, 1930 in favour of the widow and her daughter in the following words :
"Raghavamma of you is our sister-in-law and Venkatasubbamma our elder brother s daughter and we have been living jointly even during the life time of our brother and up till now. So we had as per your wish and that of ours given in marriage Venkatasubbamma of you, to our nephew Madanapalli Pitchaiah s son Nagaiah. Subsequent thereto, you being unwilling to remain joint with us represented to us that you would remain separate from us, to which we had agreed and so on the advice given by our relations to which both of us have agreed, we have executed this deed in your favour settling that the seri land of the extent of K. 4-14 described in the schedule hereunder should be taken by you towards your maintenance and after the death of Raghavamma by Venkatasubbamma towards Pasupu Kumkuma and that you should have nothing to do with our joint family debts. It is, therefore, settled that you should take possession of the said property this day itself and enjoy only the income therefrom and that on the death of the said Raghavamma of you the said property should pass to Venkatasubbamma. Further, it is settled that Venkatasubbamma of you and her children (Santhathivaru) should be in enjoyment thereof with absolute powers of gift, transfer and sale etc. It is settled that Raghavamma of you should not in any manner claim any separate maintenance etc. to be given to her during the rest of her life time by us. So you may, subject to the aforesaid terms take possession of the aforesaid property and be in enjoyment thereof. You yourselves shall pay the sarkar cist etc. thereon and get the said land entered in your name in the Government accounts. In respect of hereof, we or our heirs shall not raise any dispute whatsoever either with you or your descendants. This deed is executed with the arrangement that in case no female or male issue is born to the said Venkatasubbamma, the said schedule mentioned property should on her death, pass to us or our descendants and not to the heirs of the said Venkatasubbamma."
The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the surviving brother of the family claiming possession of the plaint schedule properties. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, as well as the Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the appeal against it, decided against him holding that the gift in favour of Venkatasubbamma was absolute and the subsequent words found in the document did not in any way limit the absolute estate conferred on Venkatasubbamma. On appeal the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held to the contrary. It appears to us that the Division Bench is right.
3. It is a principle settled beyond dispute that each document has to be interpreted on the words of that document itself and the other documents interpreted in earlier decisions cannot provide a binding precedent in interpreting a document. The document in this case is executed in favour of the widow and daughter of a predeceased coparcener of a Hindu joint family. The document says:
"We have executed this deed in your favour settling that the seri land to the extent of K. 4-14 described in the schedule hereunder should be taken by you towards your maintenance and after the death of Raghavamma by Venkatasubbamma towards pasupu kumkuma."
It refers to the maintenance not merely of the widow Raghavamma but also the daughter. Therefore, clearly as long as Raghavamma was alive the right of Venkatasubbamma (though being already married she had no right to maintenance) was also only to main
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.