Back
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
M.N. RAO AND B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, JJ.
Valluri Jaganmohini Seetharama Lakshmi & Anr - Appellant
Versus
Kopparthi Ramachandra Rao & Ors - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 158 of 1990
Decided on : 25-01-1994
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - MAINTENANCE - POCKET EXPENSES - WILL - EXECUTION - ADMISSION - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of certain properties among family members. The properties were initially owned by Venugopal Rao, who had adopted Laxminarayana as his son. Venugopal Rao executed a settlement deed (Ex. A1) and an adoption deed (Ex. B1) in favor of Seethamahalaxmi, his wife, and Laxminarayana, respectively. The settlement deed provided Seethamahalaxmi with 11 acres of land for her pocket expenses and maintenance. Venugopal Rao later executed a will (Ex. A5) bequeathing his properties to Seethamahalaxmi. After Venugopal Rao's death, Seethamahalaxmi gifted one of the properties (item 1) to the 1st defendant, Valluri Jaganmohini Seetharamalaxmi. Seethamahalaxmi also executed a will (Ex. A7) bequeathing her remaining properties to the 1st defendant. Laxminarayana's son, Kupparthi Ramachandar Rao, filed a suit (O.S. No. 24/83) seeking a declaration of title and possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint, including items 1, 2, and 3. The plaintiff claimed that items 1 and 3 were to be enjoyed by Seethamahalaxmi for her lifetime and then revert to Laxminarayana's heirs, while item 2 was not covered by Venugopal Rao's will and therefore did not pass to Seethamahalaxmi.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the settlement deed (Ex. A1) did not create any maintenance rights for Seethamahalaxmi but kept her claim for maintenance intact. Therefore, Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with limited interests, was applicable in this case, not Section 14(1), which deals with absolute rights. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of item 3 of the suit schedule property, which had fallen to Laxminarayana in partition and was not capable of being bequeathed under Venugopal Rao's will. However, the court upheld the 1st defendant's ownership of items 1 and 2, as they had been validly bequeathed to her by Seethamahalaxmi under the will (Ex. A5) and the gift settlement (Ex. A6).
Issues: 1. Whether making a provision for pocket expenses amounts to maintenance capable of enlarging into a fulfledged right under Section 35 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether the defendant in a suit is obliged to prove the Will even in the face of admission of the Will by the plaintiff in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that the settlement deed (Ex. A1) did not create any maintenance rights for Seethamahalaxmi but kept her claim for maintenance intact. Therefore, Section 14(2), which deals with limited interests, was applicable in this case, not Section 14(1), which deals with absolute rights. 2. The court held that the defendant was not obliged to prove the execution of the will (Ex. A5) since the plaintiff had admitted its execution in the plaint. The court relied on Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that facts admitted need not be proved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal in part. The judgments and decrees rendered by the trial court and the learned single Judge of this court were set aside in so far as items 1 and 2 of suit schedule properties are concerned and were affirmed in so far as item No. 3 thereof.
JUDGMENT :
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.
1. This Letter Patent Appeal raises two important questions of law as to (1) Whether making a provision for pocket expenses amounts to maintenance capable of enlarging into a fulfledged right under Section 35 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and (2) Whether the defendant in a suit is obliged to prove the Will even in the face of admission of the Will by the plaintiff in the plaint.
2. the facts briefly stated, thus, are: Ramachandar Rao and Venugopal Rao were consanguine brothers. Laxminarayana was the son of Ramachandar Rao and he was adopted by Venugopal Rao i.e., his junior paternal uncle as the letter had no issues. As the consent of his wife was necessary, Venugopalrao sought the consent of his wife Seethamahalaxmi. Venugopalrao thought it fit to secure the interests of his wife at the time of adoption of Laxminarayana so as to ensure that she does not suffer for her day-to-day expenses. As such, he executed registered settlement deed dated 15-1-1941 and simultaneously a registered deed dated 15-1-1941 evidencing the adoption of Laxminarayana. Disputes arose in the family after the adopted boy entered his adoptive parents family and the same culminated into filing of O.S. No. 69 of 1942 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur seeking a declaration that adoption of Laxminarayana is not true and valid and as a counter-blast Laxminarayana filed O.S. No. 10 of 1943 on the file of the same court impleading both Venugopalrao and his adoptive mother Seethamahalaxmi claiming partition and separate possession of half share in the joint family properties. By common judgment dated 12-4-1944, the Court held that adoption was valid by dismissing O.S. No. 69 of 1942, while decreeing the suit for partition in O.S. No. 10 of 1943. While passing decree for partition, the court left open the right of the 2nd defendant i.e., Seethamahalaxmi to pursue her remedies in a separate suit for recovery of properties covered by settlement deed dated 15-1-1941 (Ex.A1) which comprises land of Acs.11.00. Venugopal Rao preferred appeals in A.S. Nos. 270 and 280 of 1994 in Andhra High Court, but they too were dismissed. Consequently, specific items of properties were allotted to each of them i.e., Venugopalrao and Laxminarayana, entitling them to enjoy the same exclusively in view of finality of partition decree.
3. Seethamahalaxmi filed O.S. No. 29 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur for recovery of possession of an extent of Acs. 11.00 of land covered by the settlement deed (Ex.A1) or in the alternative for the allotment of other properties equal in extent and value from out of the properties which fell to the shares of Venugopalrao and his adopted son Laxminarayana. The said suit was dismissed, aggrieved by which she preferred appeal in A.S. No. 777 of 1950 in the High Court of Andhra. While the appeal was pending in the High Court, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17-6-1956. Allowing the appeal of Seethamahalaxmi, by judgment dated 19-7-.1956, the High Court ruled that Seethamahalaxmi was entitled to recover possession out of the properties alloted to Venugopalrao and his adopted son Laxminarayana of an extent equal to the value of Acs. 11.00 cts. to be determined by the trial court.
4. Pursuant to the above decree, I.A. No. 1185 of 1957 was filed by Seethamahalaxmi for passing a final decree and then the matter was compromised and a joint memo was filed on 24-4-1964 in the above I.A. to the effect that the land mentioned in Schedule I in the suit shall be 35 enjoyed by Seethamahalaxmi for her life time and accordingly a decree (Ex. A4) was passed in terms of compromise and the possession of the lands mentioned therein were handedover to her.
5. Venugopal Rao had executed a registered Will dated 30-8-1957 (Ex. A5) bequeathing his properties to his wife-Seethamahalaxmi. He died on 10-12-1967 and consequently, bequeathed properties devolved on Seethama
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
