The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that alienation by one heir without the consent of others does not bind the reversioners or the other heirs, and the rights of reversionary heirs are protected under the Law of Limitation.

Headnote:
Suppa Ammal - Property Succession - AIR. 1928 P. C. 251, AIR. 1944 Madras 310 - The court discussed the principles of joint tenancy and right of survivorship in the context of daughters succeeding to the estate of their mother. The court held that alienation by one daughter without the consent of others does not bind the reversioners or the other daughters. The court also emphasized that the right of reversionary heirs is in the nature of Spes Successions and they are entitled to rely upon the Law of Limitation for the purpose of determination of the question whether the title is barred by lapse of time.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the succession of property originally owned by Suppa Ammal and subsequently inherited by her daughters.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the documents challenged in the plaint were not binding as they were executed without the consent of all the heirs. The court also held that the suit was not barred by adverse possession and granted a decree for possession of the disputed properties in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the challenged documents, the applicability of adverse possession, and the rights of the heirs to the disputed properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of joint tenancy, right of survivorship, and the rights of reversionary heirs. It also clarified the interpretation of the Law of Limitation in cases involving succession of property.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, and the decree of the lower appellate court was confirmed, granting the plaintiffs declaration of their entitlement to the shares of the disputed properties.

Judgment :-

1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 248 of 1951 of the court of the District Munsiff of Palghat is the appellant in S.A. No. 541 of 1955. The legal representatives of the 3rd defendant in that suit are the appellants in S.A. No. 542 of 1955.

2. The suit was for the recovery of the property described in the A schedule to the plaint. The total extent of the land comprised therein is about 81/2 cents. Of these, about 21/2 cents constitute the property specified in the B schedule to the plaint and the balance constitutes the property specified in the C schedule thereto.

3. The whole of the property was purchased under Ext. B3 dated 5-9-1876. The purchaser was one Suppa Ammal, wife of a Pathan Asari. Both the lower courts have concurrently found that she was, till her death sometime prior to 1879, the real owner of the property.

4. On her death the properties devolved on her three daughters, Ayya Ammal, Vella Ammal and Meenakshi Ammal. Meenakshi Ammal died before 1909, Vella Ammal about 1941 and Ayya Ammal on 27-5-1948.

5. The 1st plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 are the surviving sons of Ayya Ammal. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of a deceased son of Ayya Ammal. Vella Ammal left behind her a son and a daughter. The daughter is the 4th plaintiff and the son, the 9th defendant. Meenakshi Ammal had a son. He died without issue.

6. In the appeal from the judgment of the trial court, A.S. No. 52 of 1953, the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat said:

"It is now admitted on all sides that the property originally belonged to Suppa Ammal only, and that after the death of Suppa Ammal's daughters it is the 4th plaintiff (the daughter of Vella Ammal) who is entitled to claim succession". (Paragraph 9)

7. The validity of two documents are challenged in the plaint, Exts. A14 and B17. Ext. A14 dated 16-3-1907 is a sale deed of the property described in the B schedule to the plaint and Ext. B17 dated 4-8-1909 is a sale deed of the property described in the C schedule to the plaint.

8. Ext. A14 was executed by Ayya Ammal and the 7th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant assigned his rights to his wife, the 2nd defendant, by Ext. B24 dated 1-3-1932. Ext. B17 was executed by Ayya Ammal, her father and all her children in favour of one Sheik Rawther and his brother. The Rawthers transferred their rights to the 3rd defendant by Ext. B19 dated 23-1-1939.

9. The lower appellate court has held - we think quite correctly - that neither of the two documents can be sustained as both of them were executed without the consent or the junction of Vella Ammal. The incidents of an estate taken by a limited heir like a daughter are similar to those of a widow's estate and there can be no doubt that on the death of Suppa Ammal her daughters took the property as qualified owners with rights of survivorship. In AIR. 1928 P. C. 251- a case of co-widows - the Board quoted the following passage from [1866] 11 Moore's Indian Appeals 487:

"Where a childless Hindu dies leaving two widows surviving they succeed by inheritance to their husband's property as one estate in co-parcenary, with a right of survivorship, and there can be no alienation or testamentary gift by one widow without the concurrence of the other";

and said:

"The general law is so well-settled that it scarcely requires restatement. If a Hindu dies leaving two widows, they succeed as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. They are entitled to obtain a partition of separate portions of the property so that each may enjoy her equal share of the income accruing therefrom. Each can deal as she pleases with her own life interest but she cannot alienate any part of the corpus of the estate by gift or will so as to prejudice the rights of the survivor or a future reversioner. If they act together they can burden the reversion with any debts contracted owing to legal necessity, but one of them acting without the authority of the other, cannot prejudice the right of survivorship by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1960 Supreme(Ker) 197

The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that alienation by one heir without the consent of others does not bind the reversioners or the other heirs, and the rights of reversionary heirs are protected under the Law of Limitation.

Cases Referred (1)