A pre-existing right to property recognized by a compromise decree is not a restricted estate acquired for the first time under the decree. Therefore, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies, and the limited estate of the holder enlarges into an absolute one.

Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - APPLICABILITY - PRE-EXISTING RIGHT - MAINTENANCE - LIMITED ESTATE - ABSOLUTE ESTATE - CHARGE - POSSESSION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - CONSTRUCTION OF COMPROMISE DECREE - FACTUAL MATRIX - LEGAL IMPLICATIONS - JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - RESTRICTED ESTATE - ENLARGEMENT OF RIGHTS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PROPERTY RIGHTS OF HINDU FEMALES.
Fact of the Case:

Mangamma, the permanent kept mistress of Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru, was gifted the Swarna Mahal building in 1932. After Ramadasappa's death, Mangamma sued his son Seshachalapathi Rajulumgaru for maintenance, resulting in a compromise decree (Ex. A-4) in 1937. The decree granted Mangamma a life estate in a portion of the building (Schedule B) and the right to retain possession of the main building (Schedule A) until Schedule B was made habitable. The respondents, Seshachalapathi's sons, filed a suit seeking a declaration and possession of the building, claiming title through a partition. Mangamma filed a counterclaim, asserting an absolute right to the property under the Hindu Succession Act (the Act).
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondents failed to establish their title to the suit property. Regarding the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Act to Schedule A, the court found that Mangamma's right to possession was in recognition of her pre-existing right as Ramadasappa's mistress and was not a restricted estate acquired for the first time under the compromise decree. Therefore, Section 14(1) applied, and Mangamma's limited estate enlarged into an absolute one.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents have title to the suit property? 2. Whether Section 14(1) of the Act applies in respect of plaint A schedule property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The respondents failed to provide evidence to support their claim of title to the suit property through a partition. 2. Mangamma's right to possession of Schedule A was a pre-existing right recognized by the compromise decree and was not a restricted estate acquired for the first time under the decree. Therefore, Section 14(1) of the Act applied, and Mangamma's limited estate enlarged into an absolute one.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts negating Mangamma's right to Schedule A were set aside. The suit was dismissed.

( 1 ) THE Appellant is" the legal representative of the Ist defendant in the suit, O. S. No. 9 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. Their paternal grandfather was one Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru. Mangarnma, the 1st defendant in the suit was the permanent kept mistress of the said Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru. He also had two legally wedded wives. On 29-2-1932 Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru executed a gift deed (Ex. B-1) gifting away a double storeyed building known as Swarna Mahal in Chittoor town to Mangamma. Thereafter some time in the year 1937 Ramadasappa Nayanimvaru died. After his death Mangamma instituted a suit, O. S. No. 62 of 1937 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor against Sesha-chalapathi Rajulumgaru, the father of the plaintiffs seeking maintenance. That suit ended in a compromise (Ex. A-4 ). The said compromise decree has two schedules. Schedule A pertains to the main residential building, and schedule B refers to a part of that building and compound admeasuring 80 x30 . The plaint A and B schedules are identical to schedules A and B of the compromise decree, Ex. A-4. Under the compromise decree besides a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30/- Mangamma was given a portion of Swarna Mahal with a condition that Sesha-chalapathi Rajulumaru should construct a bathroom, kitchen, and provide a backyard and make it habitable and until that was done Mangamma would be entitled to be in possession of the entire building. The right conferred on Mangamma under the compromise decree was only a life estate.

( 2 ) THE respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit, O. S. No. 9 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chittoor for a declaration and possession of the building Swarna Mahal. It was pleaded by them that the plaint schedule property belonged to their father Seshachalapathi Rajulumgaru who obtained the same at a partition between himself and his brother, Venkatappa Nayanimvaru and at the partition among the members of Seshacbalapathi Rajulumgaru the building fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Referring to the compromise decree, Ex. A-4 it was alleged by the plaintiffs that B schedule property was let out by Mangamma to the 2nd defendant without their consent or knowledge. They alleged that the 1st defendant Mangarnma had no right to the property covered by the compromise deed; her stay in the portion covered by A schedule was only to provide her with temporary accommodation. Although in the first instance the plaintiffs took the stand that there was no need for them to seek the relief of declaration of the subsequently an issue was framed covering that aspect also.

( 3 ) IN the written statement, the stand taken by Mangamma was that in recognition of her pre-existing right the compromise decree created a charge over the A schedule property and the limited right conferred on her had enlarged into an absolute one on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, herein after referred to as "the Act".

( 4 ) MANGAMMA also filed another suit, O. S. No. 114 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, seeking a declaration that the compromise decree Ex. A-4 was null and void. The learned trial Judge tried both the suits together. O. S. No. 114 of 1977 filed by Mangamma was dismissed and the appeal, TR. A. S. No. 3148 of 1985 was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 21-2-1989 for non-prosecution. That judgment became final.

( 5 ) O. S. No. 9 of 1974 instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed partly. The learned trial Judge held that in regard to B schedule property the right of Mangamma had enlarged into an absolute one by application of Section 14 (1) of the Act. In so far as A schedule property was concerned, the exclusionary provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act came into operation and therefore Mangamma had no right in that property. Mangamma p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1993 Supreme(AP) 290

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : G.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO, M.N.RAOMangamma.(died) - AppellantVersusM.B.Subbaramappa Nayanimvaru - RespondentDecided On : 06-23-93

A pre-existing right to property recognized by a compromise decree is not a restricted estate acquired for the first time under the decree. Therefore, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies, and the limited estate of the holder enlarges into an absolute one.

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO, M.N.RAO
Mangamma.(died) - Appellant
Versus
M.B.Subbaramappa Nayanimvaru - Respondent
Decided On : 06-23-93