Back
Madras High Court
NATARAJAN
A.Subba Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Rajammal alias Thayammal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/04/1976
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 (1) AND 14 (2) - INTERPRETATION - ENLARGEMENT OF LIMITED ESTATE - CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY FEMALE HINDU - MEANING AND SCOPE - POSTCARD ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHT OF POSSESSION DURING LIFETIME - NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST TITLE - SUIT AGAINST LESSEE - NO RES JUDICATA.
Fact of the Case:
Krishnachi Ammal, the mother of the respondent, and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the appellant, were the two wives of Ayyalu Naidu. Ayyalu Naidu died in 1939, leaving the appellant as the sole coparcener of the erstwhile joint family. The suit properties were given to Krishnachi Ammal for enjoying the usufruct therefrom towards her maintenance. Krishnachi Ammal died in 1969. The appellant claimed that the properties should revert back to him and filed a suit for possession and mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit, holding that Krishnachi Ammal had a right in the properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu and that the limited estate derived by her became enlarged by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Alternatively, they held that since the properties had been given to Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of maintenance, it must be held that the suit properties had been acquired by Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of maintenance and therefore, the case would fall under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Krishnachi Ammal had a right in the properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu by virtue of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and Act 26 of 1947? 2. Whether the suit properties were given to Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of maintenance and therefore, the case would fall under Section 14 (1) of Act 30 of 1956? 3. Whether the post-card written by the appellant to Krishnachi Ammal and the respondent would estop him from denying the respondent's title to the suit properties? 4. Whether the judgment in O. S. No. 103 of 1970 filed by the appellant against the lessee in occupation of the lands would operate as res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, as amended by Act II of 1938, did not apply to agricultural lands. The operation of the 1937 Act was extended to agricultural lands in the state of Tamil Nadu only by Madras Act 26 of 1947, which did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, Krishnachi Ammal could not have derived any right under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, as amended by Act II of 1938. 2. The giving of the suit properties to Krishnachi Ammal was a limited and restricted grant and would not have the effect of enlarging her rights by reason of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. At the time the lands were given to her, she had no pre-existing right to a share in her husband's properties and the subsequent grant could not have the effect of conferring on her a right which was nonexistent. 3. The post-card written by the appellant to Krishnachi Ammal and the respondent merely acknowledged Krishnachi Ammal's right to be in possession of the lands during her lifetime. It did not enlarge the limited grant in favour of Krishnachi Ammal into one of an absolute grant. In any event, there is no question of estoppel against title. 4. The decision in O. S. No. 103 of 1970 filed by the appellant against the lessee in occupation of the lands can have no effect whatever on the controversy between the parties in the present action.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the court below were set aside, and the appellant's suit was decreed. The appellant was entitled to mesne profits from the date of suit, the quantum of which was directed to be decided in separate proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.
JUDGMENT:- The trial court and the appellate court have concurrently found against the plaintiff, the appellant herein, and dismissed his suit for possession and for mesne profits. As may be presently seen, the dismissal of the suit is purely due to a failure of the courts below to understand the scope of Section 14 (1) and Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. The appellant's suit came to be filed in the following circumstances: One Ayyalu Naidu derived some properties in a family partition as evidenced by Ex. A-2 dated 26-9-1938. He had two wifes, Krishnachi Animal who is the mother of the respondent and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the appellant. He died on 10-1-1939 leaving the appellant as the sole coparcener of the erstwhile joint family. The suit properties which are of an extent of 1.56 acres were given sometime after the death of Ayyalu Naidu to Krishnachi Ammal for enjoying the usufruct therefrom towards her maintenance. Krishnachi Ammal died on 19-11-1969. Thereafter the appellant claimed that the properties should revert back to him and therefore, made a demand on the respondent to surrender possession. As the demand was refused, the appellant filed his suit. The contention of the appellant was that Krishnachi Ammal had no right whatever in the properties of his father and therefore, the entire properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu had been inherited by him. The giving of the suit properties to Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of her maintenance was by a family arrangement and therefore, the right given to her got extinguished on her death and did not get enlarged under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act so as to entitle the respondent to claim a right over them.
3. The respondent raised various contentions in the suit. She firstly stated that her mother had a right in the properties left behind by Ayyalu Naidu and, therefore, the suit properties were taken by her mother in her own right and not as a result of any concession. It was her further case that the suit properties were not given to her mother in lieu of maintenance. A post-card, Ex B-21 dated 25-10-1955 written by the appellant to Krishnachi Ammal and the respondent was also projected to contend that therein the appellant had conceded the right and title of Krishnachi Ammal to the suit properties and therefore, he was estopped from going back on that admission and claim the properties as belonging to him. The last of the defence was that prior to the filing of the instant suit, the appellant had filed O. S. No. 103 of 1970 against the lessee in occupation of the lands and tried to recover possession from him and in that suit, it had been held that the appellant was not the lessor and therefore the judgment in that suit would operate as res judicata.
4. The trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge took the view that by reason of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, as extended to agricultural lands by the Hindu Women's Right to Properly Act of 1947, Krishnachi Ammal was entitled to a share in her husband's properties and therefore, the limited estate derived by her, became enlarged by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Alternately, they took the view that since the properties had been given to Krishnachi Ammal in lieu of maintenance, it must be held that the suit properties had been acquired by Krishnachi Ammal in lien of maintenance and therefore, the case would fall under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The further finding was that the admission made by the appellant in the post-card written by him, would estop him from denying the respondent's title to the suit properties and setting up title in himself.
5. Mr. S. G. Ramachandra Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the judgments of the courts below are patently erroneous since each one of the findings against the appellant is not in accordance with law. It is firstly contended that Krishnachi Ammal could not
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
