Back
1934 Supreme(SC) 12
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, SIR JOHN WALLIS AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
VYTLA SITANNA - Appellant
Versus
MARIVADA VIRANNA (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Feb. 19. 1934.
Solicitors for appellant:Hy. S. L. Polak & Co. Solicitor for respondents: Harold Shephard.
A widow's conveyance of her estate to her daughter, reserving only a small portion for maintenance, constitutes a surrender that accelerates the succession of the next heir, regardless of the heir's gender. The limitation period for the reversioner begins upon the death of the accelerated heir.
Headnote:(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule I, Article 141 - Hindu Law - Widow's Estate - Surrender and Acceleration of Reversion - Conveyance by a widow of her husband's estate to her daughter, reserving a small portion for maintenance - Such transaction amounts to a surrender of the estate, resulting in the acceleration of the succession of the next heir - The principle of acceleration applies regardless of whether the heir is male or female - The basis of surrender is the effacement of the widow's interest, not the specific method of transfer - Once succession is accelerated, the limitation period for the next reversioner to sue begins from the death of the accelerated heir.
(B) Hindu Law - Illatom Custom - Panchayat Award - A fair and honest settlement of a doubtful claim by a village panchayat, based on both legal and moral grounds, is binding on the estate - Where a person is treated as an illatom son-in-law and manages the family properties, a compromise awarding a share of the estate is valid.
Facts of the case:
A widow of a deceased person partitioned the estate via a panchayat award, giving a portion to an alleged illatom son-in-law and later conveying the remainder (minus a small portion for maintenance) to her daughter. After the daughter's death, the properties passed to others. The next male reversioner filed a suit for possession after the widow's death, claiming the alienations were invalid and that the suit was within the limitation period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the panchayat award was a valid settlement of a bona fide claim. It further held that the conveyance to the daughter constituted a surrender of the widow's interest, which accelerated the daughter's succession. Consequently, the right to sue for the reversioner accrued upon the daughter's death, making the subsequent suit barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the conveyance to the daughter accelerated the succession of the next heir and whether such acceleration applies to female heirs; and whether the panchayat award in favor of the alleged illatom son-in-law was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the doctrine of surrender is based on the effacement of the widow's interest. There is no distinction in Hindu law between surrender to a male or female heir regarding the acceleration of succession. Once the widow's interest is effaced, the next heir steps into the succession immediately, and the limitation period for the next reversioner begins upon the death of that accelerated heir.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
succession
- widow's estate
-
custom
- illatom custom
-
succession
-
hindu law
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
- limitation act
-
arbitration
- panchayat awards
-
limitation
Judgement
Consolidated Appeal (No. 105 of 1931) from a decree of the High Court (March 19 and 25, 1929) modifying a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada.
In 1921 the appellant instituted a suit for possession of the properties of Tirupayya, who died in 1880; he claimed as heir upon the death of the widow of Tirupayya, which occurred earlier in 1921. In 1888 the widow had conveyed half the property of her husband to Ammanna, and the other half (less 6.42 acres which she reserved for her own maintenance) to her daughter Nagamma, who was reversionary heir to Tirupayya. Nagamma died in 1894. The defendants were in possession of the properties, some through the conveyance to Ammanna, some through the conveyance to Nagamma.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge made a decree for the properties which had been conveyed to Nagamma holding that they were merely a gift from the widow; otherwise he dismissed the suit.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs appeal but allowed the defendants appeal as to the properties conveyed by the widow to her daughter. The learned judges (Phillips and Reilly JJ.), following Sartaji v. Ramjas (( 1923) I. L. R. 46 A. 59.), held that there had been a surrender of the estate which operated as an acceleration of Nagammas reversion, and that consequently the suit as to those properties was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I., art. 141. They gave the plaintiff a decree for the 6.42 acres which Venkamma had retained for her maintenance.
1933. Nov. 30; Dec. 1, 4. Sidney Smith for the appellant. The alienations effected in 1888 were invalid against the plaintiff as reversionary heir. Both Courts held that it was not proved that Ammanna was an illatom son-in-law of Dorayya. [Reference was made to Maynes Hindu Law, para. 207.] His claim was not bona fide and was therefore not one which the widow had authority to compromise Obala Kondama Naicker Ayyan v. Kandasami Goundar . (( 1923) L. R. 51. I. A. 145.) The conveyance to him in 1888 did not purport to be made under the award of l$80 but for different reasons ; both conveyances were gifts, and valid only during the widows life. The two conveyances should be read together, as in Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb (( 1927) L. R. 54 I. A. 396.) ; so read the transaction was a division of the estate between Ammanna and Nagamma. Read as separate transactions the alienation to Ammanna was an invalid gift, and consequently the conveyance to Nagamma was not a surrender of the whole estate. The deed did not purport to be a surrender of the estate. In any case there is no decision of the Board that there is an acceleration of the reversion upon surrender to a female heir. The daughter was not a reversioner but merely personal heir to her father upon her mothers death. It has been held that a widow does not accelerate the succession by relinquishing to a co-widow Chengappa v. Buradagunta . (( 1920) I. L. R. 43 M. 855.) For the validation of an alienation by the consent of reversioners a distinction has been drawn between male and female heirs Raja Dei v. Umed Singh . (( 1912) I. L. R. 34 A. 207.)
De Gruyther K.C. and Subba Row for the respondents. The widow could bind the reversioners by a compromise of a claim against the estate Ramsumran Prasad v. Shy am Kumari (( 1922) L. R. 49 I.
A. 342.), Hiran Bibi v. Sohan Bibi (( 1914) 18 C. W. N. 929 (P. C).) ; Raoji Rupa v. Kunjalal Hiralal . (( 1930) L. R. 57 I. A. 177.) There is no ground for supposing that the award of 1880 was not honestly made ; it shows that Ammannas claim was bona fide and that half the property was a reasonable compromise. The conveyance to him was pursuant to the title which he had already obtained under the award, and it left only half the property of the deceased subject to the reversionary rights. If Nagamma had been a male the conveyance to her would have accelerated her s
