Important Points
Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has application only when a female Hindu is possessed of the property on the date of the Act under semblance of a right.
In absence of the issue having been framed and evidence led in the courts below the same cannot be raised before supreme Court.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed in terms of Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘C.P.C’).

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The respondent T.G. Seshagiri Rao who after his death has been substituted by his legal heirs, had filed a suit with inter alia prayer to declare him as an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to direct the defendant (appellant herein) to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The suit property is a residential house bearing No.257/1, 5th Cross, Kempegowda Nagar, Bangalore measuring East West 15 x 5 and north south 35.

4.The case set out by the parties is as follows :

The schedule premises was purchased by Kate T.G. Seshagiri Rao along with his uncle one T.K. Vasudeva Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 5.6.1963 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and that his uncle T.K. Vasudeva Murthy relinquished his right, title and interest which he had over the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered release deed dated 17.4.1989 and by virtue of the release deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant is the daughter in law of T.K. Vasudeva Murthy who lost her husband in an accident and that she was permitted to reside in the house as a licensee.

5.The suit was filed seeking possession, as the defendant refused to vacate the premises in spite of repeated requests and a legal notice.

6.The defendant contested the case. According to her written statement, Sri T.K. Vasudeva Murthy has no right to execute the sale deed and that Vasudeva Murthy purchased the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff out of the joint family nucleus and that joint family had consisted of Vasudeva Murthy and his son Venkata Krishna, the deceased husband of the defendant. According to her, after the death of her husband, she and her daughter Soumya were also having equal rights along with Vasudeva Murthy. It is her further case that she has been residing in the schedule premises not as a licensee but in her own right as a daughter-in-law and that the property was given to her by her in-laws till the marriage of her daughter Soumya and to enjoy the same for life with an independent title. She also contended that she was put in possession of the suit schedule property by Vasudeva Murthy with an understanding that she would remain in possession in lieu of maintenance and that she has acquired ownership as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short the ‘Act’).

7.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed :

1.Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2.Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to the delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property from the defendant?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to past and future mesne profits as claimed?

4.Whether the defendant proves that she has perfected her title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

5.Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?

6.Whether the defendant proves that she has got a legal right to the extent of her share in the suit schedule property?

7.To what Order and decree?

8.The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He relied upon Exs.P1 to P9. The defendant examined himself as DW 1. She did not produce any documents before the trial court. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, held issues 1 and 2 in the negative and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for undivided half share in the suit schedule property and entitled for partition and separate possession of his half share. In respect of issue No. 3, it was held that “entitled for future mesne prof