1. Dispute over inheritance of properties bequeathed by Will to female heirs — claim of reversionary rights by great-grandchildren under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 18 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Karunanidhi – Appellants
VERSUS
Seetharama Naidu & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 4490 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.22148/2013)
Decided On : 27-03-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- T. Harish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- V. Ramasubramanian, K. Krishna Kumar, Advocates.
For the Appellants :- T. Harish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- V. Ramasubramanian, K. Krishna Kumar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINTS
While acting as second appellate court, High Court cannot consider a case not set up by plaintiffs. It cannot exercise the jurisdiction without framing any substantial question of law. It cannot apply a provision on its own without any pleading.
No case can be decided by applying subsequent provision if it is not made retrospective.
When an heir becomes absolute owner by virtue of Will, he/she would be entitled to alienate such property by ay mode to anyone.
Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court considering a case not set up by plaintiffs – Not framing any substantial question of law – Applying section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on its own without any pleading – Not sustainable. (Para 32, 33, 35)
(b) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Plaintiff’s rights accruing after death of Alamelu Ammal in 1987 – Law applicable at relevant time – Category of heirs to which the plaintiffs belonged added in the Schedule (class I) with effect from 9.9.2005 by amendment by Act No. 39 of 2005 – Section 15 could not be applied to the plaintiffs. (Para 37, 38)
(c) Property law – In heritance – Will – Heir becoming absolute owner by virtue of Will – He/she entitled to alienate such property by ay mode to anyone. (Para 41)
Facts of the case:
Interpretation of Section 15 (2) (a) read with Section 8 and Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and a Will is the question in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in applying section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether female heirs held absolute interest or life interest in bequeathed properties and whether plaintiffs are entitled to shares as Class I heirs under the Act. (Para 20 , 21 )
3. High Court erred by applying Section 15(2)(a) without framing a substantial question of law and applying a prospective 2005 amendment to a 1987 succession. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Amendments to the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act are prospective and cannot create rights for successions that opened prior to the amendment's effective date. (Para 37 , 38 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court judgment restored — Suit dismissed. (Para 27 , 43 , 45 )
6. Can a High Court decide a second appeal on a legal issue not framed as a substantial question of law?
No. The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot suo motu decide an issue without first formulating it as a specific question. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
7. Does the 2005 amendment to the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act apply to successions that opened before September 9, 2005?
No. The amendment is prospective. Rights to claim interest by succession are determined by the law in force on the date the succession opens. It cannot retrospectively create rights for successions that occurred before the amendment's effective date. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
8. What is the legal effect of a female heir receiving absolute interest in property via a Will?
Once a heir becomes the absolute owner of a property by virtue of a Will, they are entitled to alienate that property by any mode permissible in law, including executing a Will in favor of another person. (Para 40 , 41 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the legal representative of the original defendant against the final judgment and order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 873 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) herein in part and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of ‘A’ Schedule properties and modified the judgment and decree to the effect that each respondent(plaintiff) was held entitled to 1/3rd share in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property except Item No.2 of ‘A’ Schedule and for consequential relief regarding mesne profits in respect of 2/3rd share of the respondents(plaintiffs) in ‘A’ Schedule property and accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property.
3. We herein set out the facts, in detail, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.
4. The dispute in this appeal is between the heirs of one Perumal Naidu, who was the original ancestor in the family. The legal heirs of Perumal Naidu represent three branches of the family.
5. The questions, which arise for consideration in this appeal, are what is the extent of share of each heir of Perumal Naidu in his properties; secondly, how the devolution of each heir’s share would take place; and thirdly, on the death of any heir, how his/her share would devolve on his/her legal representative in law. These are broadly the issues which arise in this appeal.
6. In order to properly answer the aforementioned questions, which lie in a narrow compass and based on more or less undisputed facts, it is necessary to set out the family genealogy tree.
Genealogical Tree
| Late Perummal Naidu died in (1924) | ||||
| | Late Subbammal (1st Wife) | | Late Lakshmi Ammal (2nd Wife) | | | Late Pappu Ammal (3rd Wife) | ||
| | Late Muthuammal (daughter) | | | | | | Late Alamelu Ammal (daughter) (Died in 1987) | | Ramanujatha Ammal (Defendant) (daughter) (died in 2004) | | No Child | |
| Late Andal Ammal (daughter) | | Late Vijayalakshmi (daughter) (died as minor) | |||
| | Seetharama Naidu (son) (Plaintiff No.1) | | Late Sagunthala (daughter) (Plaintiff No.2) | |||
7. As would be clear from the family tree, the original ancestor of the family was one male Hindu - Perumal Naidu. He owned extensive immovable properties situated in Thenkarai Esanur, Thiruvaikur Vattam, Nagapattinam Taluk in State of Tamil Nadu. The details of the properties held by Perumal Naidu are set out in the plaint and would hereafter be referred to as “suit properties”.
8. Perumal had three wives-Subbammal, Lakshmi Ammal and Pappu Ammal. Out of the first marriage with Subbammal, one daughter was born - Muthammal. Out of the wedlock of Muthammal, two daughters-Andal Ammal and Vijayalakshmi were born. Vijayalakshmi, however, died during her minority. Out of the wedlock of Andal Ammal, one son-Seetharama Naidu (plaintiff No.1) and a daughter- Sagunthala (plaintiff No. 2) were born.
9. Out of Perumal Naidu’s second marriage with Lakshmi Ammal, two daughters were born-Alamelu Ammal and Ramanujatha Ammal (defendant). Both did not have any issue. Alamelu Ammal died in 1987 whereas Ramanujatha Ammal died in 2004. So far as Perumal Naidu’s 3rd wife-Pappu Ammal is concerned, she died issueless.
10. On 27.12.1923, Perumal Naidu executed a Will and bequeathed his immovable and movable properties including the suit properties to his heirs such as, his 3rd wife, two daughters from second wife, his granddaughters from first wife and his son-in-law. The Will specified the extent of properties bequeathed to each heir named above. Soon after the execution of the Will, Perumal Naidu died in the 1924.
11. The execution of the Will by Perumal Naidu gave rise to litigation amongst his heirs. One suit being Civil Suit No.13/1924 was filed by his two daughters-Alamelu Ammal and Ramanujatha Ammal. Since both the daughters were minor, therefore
