Back
Madras High Court
SADASIVAM,V. RAMASWAMI
Santhanam Kachapalaya Gurukkal - Appellant
Versus
V.Subramania Gurukkal - Respondent
Decided On : 10/14/1971
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY FEMALE HINDU IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF SUB-SECTION (2) - WHETHER PROPERTY OBTAINED BY HINDU FEMALE IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE IS AN 'ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUB-SECTION (2) - WHETHER SUB-SECTION (2) APPLIES TO DECLARATORY DECREES - WHETHER SUB-SECTION (2) APPLIES TO CASES WHERE FEMALE HAD INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO HER ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY IN ONE OR OTHER OF THE MODES MENTIONED IN THE SAID SUB-SECTION.
Fact of the Case:
Sivakami Ammal, the decree-holder in O.S.576 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, obtained 9 acres 66 cents in Sirukayeripakkam village under the compromise decree in the said suit for her maintenance. The appellant is the second defendant in the suit and he is the elder brother of the respondent-plaintiff and the first defendant is their father. Sivakami Ammal is the widow of a predeceased brother of the first defendant. She filed O.S. No.576 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.15 per month and arrears of maintenance Rs.540 against the present first defendant and the appellant herein, then a minor aged two years, represented by the first defendant as guardian. The respondent-plaintiff was not born at that time. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the suit register extract relating to O.S.576 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, and it is the only record available in respect of the proceedings in that suit. The terms of the compromise as found in Ex.A-1 are as follows: (Original in Tamil omitted.) Contrary to the terms of the compromise, Sivakami Ammal executed the settlement deed, Ex.B-1 on 3-1-1957 in favour of the appellant. Sivakami Ammal died on 23-6-1957. Thereafter the first defendant filed O.S. No.146 of 1958, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, against the appellant herein to recover possession of the suit properties on the ground that the settlement deed Ex.B-1 was invalid. The present plaintiff was not a party to that suit. The suit ended in a compromise decree under which the first defendant obtained 2 acres 59 cents of land absolutely and recognised the absolute right of the appellant herein in respect of the remaining lands in the suit. Both the trial court and the appellate court have in the present case held that Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate in the suit properties and that by reason of S.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, she could not get absolute title under sub-section (1) of S.14 of the said Act and granted a decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for 3 acres 22 cents of land out of 7 acres 57 cents of land in the hands of the appellant. Veeraswami J. as he then was, dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the courts below formed the correct view as to the scope of sub-section (2) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate in the suit properties under the compromise decree and that by reason of S.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, she could not get absolute title under sub-section (1) of S.14 of the said Act. The court also held that the appellant could not claim an absolute right in the suit properties on the ground that his transferor Sivakami Ammal became the full owner of the suit properties by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate in the suit properties under the compromise decree? 2. Whether Sivakami Ammal could get absolute title under sub-section (1) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act? 3. Whether the appellant could claim an absolute right in the suit properties on the ground that his transferor Sivakami Ammal became the full owner of the suit properties by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate in the suit properties under the compromise decree. The terms of the compromise taken along with the surrounding circumstances under which the compromise decree came into existence leave no room to doubt that Sivakami Ammal got nothing more than a life estate in the properties allowed to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime. 2. The court held that Sivakami Ammal could not get absolute title under sub-section (1) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Under S.14(2) of the said Act, which is an exception to S.14(1), where a female Hindu acquires property under a decree of a civil court prescribing a restricted estate in such property, she cannot invoke S.14(1) of the Act to claim an absolute estate. 3. The court held that the appellant could not claim an absolute right in the suit properties on the ground that his transferor Sivakami Ammal became the full owner of the suit properties by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellant could succeed only if he is able to show that on the terms of S.14(1) of the said Act, Sivakami Ammal became entitled to an absolute right in the suit properties. However, the court found that Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate under the compromise decree of 1917, and therefore, the appellant could not claim enlargement of the said right into an absolute one by invoking S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment in S.A. No.369 of 1962, on the file of this Court.
SADASIVAM, J.:- This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Veeraswami J., as he then was, in S.A. No.369 of 1962, on the file of this court, reported in Santhana Kanchapalaya Gurukkal v. V. Subramania Gurukkal, ILR 1967-1 Mad 68. The decision has been dissented from by Ramamurti J. in Chellammal v. Nallammal, 1971-1 Mad LJ 439 at p.466.
2. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether, by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sivakami Ammal, the decree-holder in O.S.576 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, became absolutely entitled to 9 acres 66 cents in Sirukayeripakkam village obtained by her under the compromise decree in the said suit for her maintenance. The appellant is the second defendant in the suit and he is the elder brother of the respondent-plaintiff and the first defendant is their father. Sivakami Ammal is the widow of a predeceased brother of the first defendant. She filed O.S. No.576 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.15 per month and arrears of maintenance Rs.540 against the present first defendant and the appellant herein, then a minor aged two years, represented by the first defendant as guardian. The respondent-plaintiff was not born at that time. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the suit register extract relating to O.S.576 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, and it is the only record available in respect of the proceedings in that suit. The terms of the compromise as found in Ex.A-1 are as follows:
(Original in Tamil omitted.)
Contrary to the terms of the compromise, Sivakami Ammal executed the settlement deed, Ex.B-1 on 3-1-1957 in favour of the appellant. Sivakami Ammal died on 23-6-1957. Thereafter the first defendant filed O.S. No.146 of 1958, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, against the appellant herein to recover possession of the suit properties on the ground that the settlement deed Ex.B-1 was invalid. The present plaintiff was not a party to that suit. The suit ended in a compromise decree under which the first defendant obtained 2 acres 59 cents of land absolutely and recognised the absolute right of the appellant herein in respect of the remaining lands in the suit. Both the trial court and the appellate court have in the present case held that Sivakami Ammal had only a life estate in the suit properties and that by reason of S.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, she could not get absolute title under sub-section (1) of S.14 of the said Act and granted a decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for 3 acres 22 cents of land out of 7 acres 57 cents of land in the hands of the appellant. Veeraswami J. as he then was, dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the courts below formed the correct view as to the scope of sub-section (2) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
2A. In criticising the decision under appeal, Ramamurti J. has rightly observed in paragraph 56 of his judgment in 1971-1 Mad LJ 439 at p.465, that "It would not be correct to describe a present valid enforceable right to maintenance of a Hindu widow against the joint family properties as in the nature of spes successionis"
But he proceeded to observe that
"It was not argued before the learned Judge that, at any rate, after the institution of the suit in 1917, claiming a charge over all the joint family properties, right in or title to immoveable property was in dispute and that the compromise was in settlement of a dispute in which rights over immoveable properties had accrued in favour of the widow before the allotment".
He relied on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Nirmalchand v. Vidyawanti, C.A. No.609 of 1965(SC) in support of his conclusion that a stipulation in an agreement between the widow on the one side and the surviving coparceners on the other
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
