1956 Supreme(AP) 178

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, UMAMAHESWARAM, VISWANATHA SASTRY
GADDAM VENKAYAMMA - Appellant
Versus
GADDAM VEERAYYA (DIED) - Respondent
Decided On : 08-31-56

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) enlarged the limited interest of a Hindu widow into an absolute estate with retrospective effect, but its operation was confined to property in the possession of the female when the Act came into force.

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - ENLARGEMENT OF LIMITED INTEREST INTO ABSOLUTE ESTATE - APPLICABILITY TO PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF FEMALE ON DATE OF ACT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 43 - INTEREST FEEDING ESTOPPEL - INAPPLICABILITY TO PROPERTY NOT IN POSSESSION OF FEMALE ON DATE OF ACT - LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 125 - SUIT BY REVERSIONER TO SET ASIDE ALIENATION BY WIDOW - APPLICABILITY TO SUIT BY REMOTE REVERSIONER - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 68 - ATTESTATION OF WILL - PRESUMPTION OF GENUINENESS - REBUTTAL BY EVIDENCE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Gaddam Veerayya, the paternal uncle of Sambayya, deceased, instituted three suits for a declaration that certain sales of Sambayya's lands effected by his widow and mother were not binding on his reversioners. The sales were impugned on the ground that they were not supported by any necessity of the estate. The widow and mother of Sambayya, as well as the vendees from them, were made defendants to the suits. The Court below held that the will of Sambayya had not been proved and that the widow of Sambayya had inherited his properties as his heir-at-law. The vendees did not seek to support the sales on the ground of any necessity of the estate.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) enlarged the limited interest of a Hindu widow into an absolute estate with retrospective effect, but its operation was confined to property in the possession of the female when the Act came into force. The word "possessed" in Section 14 referred to possession on the date when the Act came into force. The Court further held that a Hindu female limited owner who, before the coming into force of the Act, had sold property inherited by her retained no right to or interest in the property on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Section 14 merely enlarged her limited interest into an absolute estate in the property held by her when the Act came into force and did not enlarge the rights of a purchaser of her limited interest before the Act came into force. The Court also held that Article 125 of the Limitation Act applied to suits by reversioners, presumptive or remote, for setting aside alienations of the widow during her lifetime, as such suits were representative suits brought on behalf of all reversioners. The Court further held that the defendants had failed to prove the genuineness of the will alleged to have been executed by Sambayya.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) enlarged the limited interest of a Hindu widow into an absolute estate with retrospective effect and its operation was confined to property in the possession of the female when the Act came into force? 2. Whether a Hindu female limited owner who, before the coming into force of the Act, had sold property inherited by her retained no right to or interest in the property on the date of the coming into force of the Act? 3. Whether Article 125 of the Limitation Act applied to suits by reversioners, presumptive or remote, for setting aside alienations of the widow during her lifetime? 4. Whether the defendants had proved the genuineness of the will alleged to have been executed by Sambayya?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) enlarged the limited interest of a Hindu widow into an absolute estate with retrospective effect, but its operation was confined to property in the possession of the female when the Act came into force. 2. A Hindu female limited owner who, before the coming into force of the Act, had sold property inherited by her retained no right to or interest in the property on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Section 14 merely enlarged her limited interest into an absolute estate in the property held by her when the Act came into force and did not enlarge the rights of a purchaser of her limited interest before the Act came into force. 3. Article 125 of the Limitation Act applied to suits by reversioners, presumptive or remote, for setting aside alienations of the widow during her lifetime, as such suits were representative suits brought on behalf of all reversioners. 4. The defendants had failed to prove the genuineness of the will alleged to have been executed by Sambayya.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs of respondents 4 and 5 in A. S. No. 80 of 1950, respondents 5 and 6 in A. S. No. 801 of 1951, and respondents 3 and 4 in A. S. No. 802 of 1951.