Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 280
Karnataka High Court
Chamu Jinnappa Sheri - Appellant
Versus
Savitri Yeshwantrao Chagule - Respondent
Decided On : 04-13-04
C.P. : 213 of 2000
Anil V.Katharki, V.P.Kulkarni
The interpretation of registered deeds and the distinction between limited and absolute interests in determining property rights under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
Headnote:
Limited Estate - Property Partition - Section 14(1) of the Succession Act - [1977)3 SCC 99, (1977) 3 SCC 145, (1979)3 SCC 300, (1987)3 SCC 674, (1988) 1 SCC 99, AIR 2001 Kant 246 - The court discussed the interpretation of the partition deed and the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act in determining the nature of the estate granted. It highlighted the distinction between limited and absolute interests and emphasized the importance of registered deeds in determining property rights.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, seeking an opportunity to submit arguments on merits due to a mistake in the previous appeal disposal. The counsel for respondents referred to a partition deed and contended that the daughters were entitled to a share in the property under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant stipulations in the partition deed and compared them with precedents related to limited estate rights. It concluded that the daughters were not entitled to a share in the property by way of succession and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Interpretation of the partition deed, applicability of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, entitlement of daughters to property share.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of registered deeds in determining property rights and clarified the distinction between limited and absolute interests in the context of succession rights.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the earlier order, ruling that the daughters were not entitled to a share in the property by way of succession.
( 1 ) THE respondents have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC. It is submitted that the appeal was disposed of earlier by this court and Sri G. S. Vishveswara was appearing for the respondents then. The order of this Court was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After the remand Sri V. P. Kulkarni filed vakalath for the respondents. By mistake office did not show the name of Sri V. P. Kulkarni, therefore it is submitted that the Counsel appearing for the respondents has not been heard and prayed for an opportunity to submit his arguments on merits. The request is granted and heard.
( 2 ) SRI V. P. Kulkarni referred to the contents of the registered partition deed marked at Ex. P. 5 dated 4-10-1963. The following are the material paragraph of the deed relevant for consideration. "the details of the properties jointly given to the share of No. 1 - Jinnappa Nemanna Sheri and No. 2 Jivabalawwa W/o Jinnappa Sheri are : government Raitawa land, bearing No. 829, measuring 02 acres 13 guntas, assessed at Rs. 23-12-00 situate within the limits of Belgaum. Complete number, to which no boundaries have been given. Since this land is a Raitawa land, the cost of this land for the purpose of Stamp duty has been made at Rs. 593-12-00 being the 25 times of the assessment of the land. The income derived from this land is to be enjoyed till lifetime. The properties as fallen to the share of each of us as stated above, have been taken in possession by each of them and shall hereinafter enjoy with all the appurtenancies therein and all other rights therein and that each of them shall safeguard their respective interest. All the assessment and other cesses etc. of the respective properties shall be paid by each of them and shall enjoy the property generation to generation. Land R. S. No. 829 has been given to Nos. 1 and 2 for their life enjoyment and accordingly nos. 1 and 2 shall enjoy the said land during their life time and pay all the Government assessment and cesses etc. of the said land during their life time. After their death the said land shall be got partitioned by Nos. 3, 4 and 5 equally. That Nos. 1 and 2 shall have right during the life time to reside in one of the rooms of the house properties fallen to the shares of 3, 4 and 5 and that they shall reside with any one of them jointly as per their wish".
( 3 ) IT is the contention of the counsel for respondents that the joint allotment of share in favour of Jinnappa and Jivabalawwa is an absolute allotment of share in their favour. The terms of document does not indicate that only the lifetime interest was created. In the alternative, the Counsel contends that Jinnappa predeceased Jivabalawwa. The share allotted in favour of Jivabalawwa is towards the pre-existing right of maintenance. In view of the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Succession Act the limited estate granted under Ex. P5 ripens into full estate, therefore the respondents who are daughters are entitled to a share by way of succession in the estate of their mother Jivabalawwa, the following decisions of the Supreme Court are cited in support of the contentions. (1) V. Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977)3 SCC 99 : (AIR 1977 SC 1944) (2) Sellammal v. Nallammal (1977) 3 SCC 145 : (AIR 1977 SC 1265) (3) Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai (1979)3 SCC 300 : (AIR 1979 SC 993) (4) Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987)3 SCC 674 : (AIR 1987 SC 2251) (5) Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal v. Maharaja Pillai Thilanayakom Pillai (1988) 1 SCC 99 (6) K. Muniswamy v. K. Venkataswamy AIR 2001 Kant 246 : (2001 AIR Kant HCR 1158)
( 4 ) SRI V. P. Kulkarni strenuously contended that the ratio laid down in K. Muniswamy v. K. Venkataswamy in AIR 2001 Karnataka 246 : (2001 AIR- Kant HCR 1158) squarely applies to the facts of the case, there is no express bar prohibiting alienation by Jinnappa and Jivabalawwa in Ex. D1, therefore what is
