Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY,SRINIVASACHARI, JJ.
Nallajerla Krishnayya
Versus
Vuppala Raghavulu
Second Appeal No. 1134 of 1954 against decree of Dist. J., Guntur in A. S. No. 163 of 1951.
Decided On : 24-01-1958
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 6(D) - LIFE ESTATE - ALIENABILITY - MAINTENANCE - RESTRICTION ON TRANSFER - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent gave two acres of land for maintenance to his brother's widow under Ex. A-1 dated 29-4-1933. He took the property from her on lease under three documents, Ex. A-5 dated 16-7-1934 for a period of three years, there being a renewal under Ex. A-6 dated 30-4-1937 for a period of three years. On the expiry of this lease, the respondent executed Ex. A-7 on 4-5-1940, for another term of five years. Shortly after the termination of the last lease, the grantee sold her rights in the property to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under Ex. A-8. As the respondent refused to surrender possession of the property to him, he was obliged to institute the present suit to recover possession of the plaint scheduled land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the interest created in favor of the widow under Ex. A-1 was a life estate and her enjoyment of the property was not confined to her personally. The relevant clause only connoted a life estate. There is nothing in the language of the document to indicate that what was given was limited to her personal enjoyment falling short of a life estate.
Issues: Whether the interest created in favor of the widow under Ex. A-1 was a life estate or whether it bestowed only an interest which was inalienable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent limitation violates the right that was conferred under her in the earlier part of the document. The court also held that the test for deciding whether the property allotted to a widow or to some other person for maintenance or for any other purpose comes within the ambit of Section 6(d) or not is whether the deed conferred any right against the properties comprised therein or whether the intention was to give her for her maintenance a personal right to appropriate the profits in the property assigned to her.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed.
CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -
This second appeal is placed before a Bench as Umamaheswaram J., who heard it first thought an important question of law was involved.
2. The controversy in the appeal centres round S. 6(d) of die Transfer of Property Act. The facts that have given rise to this appeal may be briefly recalled. The respondent gave two acres of land for maintenance to his brothers widow under Ex. A-1 dated 29-4-1933. He took the property from her on lease under three documents, Ex. A-5 dated 16-7-1934 for a period of three years, there being a renewal under Ex. A-6 dated 30-4-1937 for a period of three years.
On the expiry of this lease, the respondent executed Ex. A-7 on 4-5-1940, for another term of five years. Shortly after the termination of the last lease, the grantee sold her rights in the property to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under Ex. A-8. As the respondent refused to surrender possession of the property to him, he was obliged to institute the present suit to recover possession of the plaint scheduled land. The suit was contested on several defences, but the one relevant for the purpose of this enquiry is that as the interest created in favour of the widow under Ex. A-1 was restricted to her enjoyment personally, the transfer was invalid and the vendee had acquired no rights thereunder.
The Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, held that since life interest was given to the widow in the concerned property, it was competent for her to convey her interest. On appeal, the District Judge differed from him and dismissed the suit as, in his opinion, the enjoyment of the property was restricted to her personally. We have now to consider which of the two views is correct.
2a. In order to appreciate the point that falls to be determined in this appeal, it is convenient to refer to the terms of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.
"Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force.
X X X X X
(d) An interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred by him.
The question debated before us is whether Ex. A-1 created a life interest in the grantee or whether it bestowed only an interest which was inalienable. The answer to this depends on the relevant clauses in the document Ex. A-1.
"The schedule property worth Rs. 300/- is given to you for maintenance and put in your possesssion this day. From now onwards, you may keep the said property in your possession and enjoy the income therefrom for your life. I and my heirs shall take possession of the property given to you for your maintenance after your death. You should pay the Circar cist due on the land. You should not alienate the property in any manner, nor contract any debt thereon. You should enjoy the produce of this property and should not claim enhanced maintenance. I and my heirs shall not raise any disputes in respect of this property".
Is the language of the document consistent with the creation of life interest or is it something less than that bringing it within the purview of Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act?
3. In support of his conclusion, the District Judge relied on Basangowda Virupaxgowda v. Irgowadati Kallangowda, ILR 47 Bom 597 : (AIR 1923 Bom 276) (A) and Lachhmeshwar Sahai v. Mt. Moti Rani, AIR 1939 PC 157 (B). In the first of the cases, the document that was to be considered by the learned Judges ran as follows :
"I have taken for myself the property for the period of my life-time. I alone shall pay Judi.................................................. and I shall go on making Vahivat. I shall not sell or mortgage or give it as present or in any manner give it into the possession of others. If I do so, it will not be valid.......................... After my death, the said minor alone is owner of the said property". In execution of a decree obtained against the widow, the decre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
