Back
Madras High Court
N. S. RAMASWAMI
Chellammal - Appellant
Versus
Valliammal - Respondent
Decided On : 08/22/1977
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - PARTITION - WIDOWS - ABSOLUTE ESTATE - CULTIVATING TENANTS PROTECTION ACT - FORFEITURE OF LEASE - DENIAL OF TITLE - [HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14(1)] [CULTIVATING TENANTS PROTECTION ACT]
Fact of the Case:
Two widows inherited their husband's properties as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. In 1943, they mutually agreed to a final and absolute partition of the properties, dividing them by metes and bounds. The plaintiff-widow was allotted the suit properties, while the first defendant-widow received other properties. In 1964, the first defendant executed a gift deed, purporting to transfer an undivided half share in the suit properties to the second defendant, who was the plaintiff's lessee. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession of the suit properties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the partition of 1943 was not true but still there was a partition arrangement under which the plaintiff became entitled to the properties in question. The first appellate court, on review of the evidence, held that the partition of 1943 was a final and absolute partition by metes and bounds, entitling the plaintiff to the reliefs sought. The court also held that the second defendant had forfeited his lease by denying the plaintiff's title and was not entitled to protection under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the partition of 1943 between the two widows was a final and absolute partition, putting an end to the right of survivorship. 2. Whether the plaintiff acquired the suit properties under the partition of 1943, entitling her to an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. Whether the second defendant, as a lessee, was entitled to protection under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, despite denying the plaintiff's title.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the partition of 1943 was a final and absolute partition by mutual consent of the widows, as found by the first appellate court. This finding was binding on the second appeal and could not be challenged. 2. The court interpreted Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to mean that a female Hindu who acquires property at a partition, even if she had a pre-existing right to a share, would become the absolute owner of that property. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff did not 'acquire' the suit properties under the partition because she had inherited a widow's estate along with the first defendant. 3. The court held that the second defendant had forfeited his lease by denying the plaintiff's title. The court found that the second defendant had taken a gift deed from the first defendant, claiming title to an undivided half share in the suit properties, and had maintained this claim in the suit. This constituted a wilful denial of the plaintiff's title, leading to the forfeiture of the lease.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession of the suit properties. The second defendant was not entitled to protection under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.
JUDGMENT :- The defendants are the appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties, for permanent injunction in respect of one item and for recovery of possession and other reliefs in respect of another.
2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the widows of one Kandaswami Gounder who died on 18-9-1942. He had no issue. He left considerable immoveable properties in the shape of agricultural lands. The case of the plaintiff has been that even in the year 1943 there had been a final partition of the properties by metes and bounds between the two widows by mutual consent, that in the said partition the suit properties fell to her (plaintiff' s) share, that in respect of one of the suit properties (item 2 of first schedule) the second defendant who is no other than Kandaswami Gounder' s brother' s son became a tenant under the plaintiff and that as the second defendant failed to pay the rent and began disputing her title along with the first defendant, the suit was necessitated. It is under Ex. A-1 dated 12-2-1964, the second defendant became a lessee of one of the suit properties under the plaintiff, but within five months thereafter, that is, under Ex. A-5, dated 13-7-1964, the first defendant purported to gift to the second defendant an undivided half share in the properties left by her late husband, Kandaswami Gounder. The second defendant, by virtue of the above settlement deed disputed his lessor' s (plaintiffs) title contending that he had become the owner of an undivided half share in the suit properties. Only thereafter the suit out of which this second appeal arises came to be filed.
3. As I said, the case of the plaintiff has been that there had been a final partition by metes and bounds by mutual consent between her and the first defendant even in the year 1943 and that in the said partition, the suit properties fell to her share. It is her further case, that by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she became the absolute owner of the properties including the suit properties which fell to her share in the above said partition.
4. The defendants inter alia contended that there was no final partition as claimed by the plaintiff, that the division of the properties was only for the purpose of convenient enjoyment and not a final and absolute partition and that therefore there is no question of the plaintiff getting a declaration of title in respect of the suit properties.
5. The trial Judge gave a halting finding regarding the question of partition. He found that the partition as claimed by the plaintiff was not true but still there was a partition arrangement under which she became entitled to the properties in question. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the settlement deed, purporting to gift an undivided half share of the properties executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, is not valid in respect of the properties in question, that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction in respect of item 1 and recovery of possession of item 2 of the plaint first schedule properties and that she is also entitled to arrears of mesne profits at a particular sum in respect of item 2. The future mesne profits regarding this item was directed to be determined in separate application. He awarded costs to the plaintiff, but limited it to a certain sum.
6. The defendants filed an appeal to the District Judge of Coimbatore against the decree and judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross-objections claiming that the trial court ought to have awarded past mesne profits at a higher rate and it was also not right in restricting the quantum of costs.
7. The first appellate court, on a review of the entire evidence, has given a finding that the partition of the year 1943 between the plaintiff and the first defendant was a final and absolute partition by metes and bounds of the properties left by Kandaswami Gounder and tha
AI
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
