The right to maintenance under Hindu law can convert a limited interest in property into absolute ownership, overriding restrictions in the management deed.

JUDGMENT :

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.]

The appellant/original plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2013 passed by District Judge, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal no. 205 of 2009, thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Jalna, in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 2007, thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant seeking cancellation of sale deed, declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction.

2. For sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their original status in the suit.

3. The Appellant/plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 2007 contending that defendant No.1 Indubai was his legally wedded wife. After solemnization of marriage on 10.5.1997, she happily resided with him for about 8 years. Thereafter, some dispute erupted between them eventually, she started residing with her parents. She instituted proceeding for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against him. The dispute was amicably resolved by intervention of friends. Defendant No.1 resumed matrimonial life with him. In turn, he executed a registered management deed dated 9.3.2006 in her favour giving her right to manage suit property bearing Gat No. 281, admeasuring 1 Hectare 20 R situated at Kapurwadi. A lifetime interest was created in her favour with restriction from creating third party interest. However within a short span, defendant again left matrimonial home. Thereafter, she suffered mental disorder and was under treatment of a psychiatrist at Aurangabad. Taking disadvantage of her mental health, her brother, who was serving in Police Department, made her to execute a sale deed dated 4.6.2007 in respect of suit property in favour of defendant No.2. According to plaintiff, sale deed dated 4.6.2007 is invalid as Defendant No.1 had neither authority to transfer the suit property nor was she in fit state of mind to make valid disposition.

4. Defendants resisted suit contending that suit property was handed over to defendant No.1 under Management deed in lieu of maintenance. She was in possession of suit property as exclusive owner. Plaintiff’s ill-treatment made her to leave the matrimonial home. She had no source of income to maintain herself. Therefore, she sold out the property to defendant No.2 for valuable consideration. Defendant No.2 has acquired ownership and possession in pursuance to the sale deed.

5. The trial court framed issues based on pleadings of the parties and after hearing them, concluded that the suit property was given in lieu of maintenance to the defendant No.1. Consequently, she had acquired absolute ownership over the suit property and disposition of property by her in favour of defendant No.2 is valid.

6. Plaintiff assailed decision of trial court in appeal before the District Judge, Jalna, who concurred with the judgment and decree passed by trial court, eventually dismissed the appeal.

7. Mr. B.R. Kedar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are perverse, based on misreading/misinterpretation of the Management Deed dated 9.3.2006. By inviting attention of this court to the contents of the management deed, Mr. Kedar would submit that a restricted right was created in favour of defendant No.1 to enjoy the ownership and possession of the property for maintenance with further rider to not to create third party interest in the property. He would submit that suit property was to revert back to plaintiff and his legal heirs after defendant's lifetime enjoyment. Defendant No.1 could have secured absolute ownership only if any instance of ill-treatment towards defendant No.1 erupts. According to Mr. Kedar, there is nothing on record to show that condition precedent for conferment of ownership in favour of defendant No.1 has been ever complied. In support of his contentions, he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in the case of Gaddam Ramakrishana Reddi and others vs. Gaddam Rami Reddi 2011