Back
1930 Supreme(SC) 57
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
NARAYANASWAMI AYYAR - Appellant
Versus
RAMA AYYAR - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : June. 30. 1930.
Solicitors for appellants:Chapman-Walker & Shephard. Solicitor for respondents Nos.1 to 4: H. S. L. Polak.
A Hindu widow's surrender of her estate is valid only if made in favor of the nearest reversioner(s) in degree. Without the consent of the nearest reversioners, a transfer to more remote heirs does not constitute a valid surrender or accelerate the reversion.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Power of Surrender by Widow - A Hindu widow can renounce her interest in favor of the nearest reversioner if there is only one, or all the reversioners nearest in degree if there are more than one - Such a renunciation accelerates the estate of the heir by destroying the widow's life estate - For a surrender to be valid, it must be in favor of the nearest reversioners; a transfer to subsequent reversioners without the consent of the nearest reversioners does not constitute a valid surrender.
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 51 - Compensation for Improvements - A party making improvements to property in the bona fide belief that they are the owner is entitled to compensation - Improvements made after the filing of suits for recovery of the property, where the belief of ownership is no longer bona fide, are not entitled to compensation.
Facts of the case:
A widow of a deceased person executed deeds conveying property to her grandsons. The sons of one of the daughters of the deceased later sued as reversioners for possession after the death of the last intermediate female. The defendants argued the deeds were a valid surrender of the estate and a family settlement. It was also claimed that improvements were made to the property in the belief of ownership, for which compensation was sought under the Transfer of Property Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the widow did not renounce her interest in favor of the nearest reversioners (the daughters), and there was no evidence that the daughters consented to or acquiesced in the transactions. Consequently, the alienation was not a valid surrender. Regarding compensation, the court upheld the award for improvements made in good faith prior to the litigation but denied it for improvements made during the pendency of the suits.
Issues: Whether the transactions executed by the widow constituted a valid surrender under Hindu law and the determination of the proper amount of compensation for improvements made to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid surrender by a Hindu widow requires the renunciation of her life estate in favor of the nearest reversioners in degree. If the nearest reversioners are not the beneficiaries and have not consented to the transfer, the transaction cannot accelerate the reversion. Compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act is only available for improvements made under a bona fide belief of ownership.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
succession
- widow's estate
-
succession
-
hindu law
-
property law
-
transfer of property act
- compensation for improvements
-
transfer of property act
-
practice and procedure
- civil appeals
Judgement
Appeal (No. 1 of 1928) from a decree of the High Court (October 15, 1925) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram (September 30, 1921).
The principal respondents, as reversioners of their grandfather after the death of his last surviving daughter who was their mother, sued the appellants, alleging that an alienation in 1867 of their grandfathers property by his widow to the sons of his daughters was invalid, and claiming possession. The principal defendants by their written statements pleaded that the alienation was binding as a surrender of the estate, and that it had been accepted and acted upon by all the surviving members of the family, including the plaintiffs ; alternatively they alleged that they had made improvements to buildings upon the alienated land in the bona fide belief that they were owners, and were entitled to compensation under s. 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the alienation was valid as a surrender to all the grandsons, also as a family arrangement made bona fide.
Upon an appeal by the plaintiffs to the High Court the judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramesam J. Reilly J. concurring, on August 15, 1924. The learned judges held, for reasons which appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, that the alienation was not valid as a surrender by the widow, also that it could not be justified as a family arrangement. They remitted the case for findings as to the claim for compensation, and upon the findings made a decree setting aside the judgment, and decreeing that the defendants were entitled to Rs.5800 compensation in respect of the improvements made in 1898, that the plaintiffs, within a time to be fixed, should either pay that sum and take the land and buildings, or sell the land to the defendants for Rs.1500, the agreed value of the land, and that if the improvements made by the defendants in 1903 could be definitely ascertained and could be removed without diminution in the value of the remainder, the defendants should be at liberty to remove them within a month of it being so ascertained.
1930. May 15, 16. De Gruyther K.C. and Narasimham for the appellants. The transfers of 1867 were valid surrenders of the estate. Although the daughters did not join in the transfers the evidence shows that they acquiesced in them; the effect was that their reversionary interests were included in the transfer. Although the transfers were only to the eldest son of each daughter the evidence shows that the intention was that all the grandsons should benefit. Reference was made to Nobokishore Sarma Roy v. Hari Nath Sarma Roy (( 1884) I. L. R. 10 C. 1102.); Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden (( 1918) L. R. 46 I. A, 72.); Sureshwar Misser v. Maheshrani Misrain (( 1920) L. R. 47 I. A. 233.) ; and on the question of compensation, which it was contended was insufficient, to the transfer of Property Act, 1882, s. 51; and Vallabhdas Naranji v. Development Officer, Bandra . (( 1929) L. R. 56 I. A. 259, 263.)]
Dube for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was not called upon.
June 19. The judgment of their Lordships Was delivered by
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON. This is an appeal by the defendants (Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 in the suit) from a decree dated October 15, 1925, and two judgments dated August 15, 1924, and October 15, 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing a decree dated September 30, 1921, made by the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram. The first four respondents are plaintiffs in the suit and the remainder of the respondents are pro forma defendants.
The suit was brought by five surviving sons of one Lakshmiammal. Since the institution of the suit one of the sons, Sabramania Ayyar, died ; the third and fourth plaintiffs are his legal representatives.
The two questions in this appeal are whether a transaction entered into by Thayammal, the widow of one Ananthakrishna Ayyar, in the year 1867, constituted a valid " sur
