Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 678
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice Jagadeesan
Mariappa Gounder and two others
Versus
V. Kandasamy and Others
S.A. Nos. 880 of 1985 and 881 of 1985
Decided On : 27-04-1998
A female Hindu who acquires property in lieu of maintenance, where she has a pre-existing right of maintenance, becomes the absolute owner of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FEMALE HINDU IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - FULL OWNERSHIP - PRE-EXISTING RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of properties, claiming equal shares as the sons of the original owner. The defendants, including the fourth defendant who claimed title under a settlement deed, contested the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 became the absolute owner of the properties under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as they were given to her in lieu of maintenance. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Section 14(2) of the Act applied and the mother had only a limited estate. The plaintiffs and the third defendant, who claimed to be a tenant under the fourth defendant, filed separate appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applied in this case, as the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 had a pre-existing right of maintenance on the date of the compromise decree pursuant to which she acquired the property. The court found that the husband had admitted in the maintenance suit that he was living with a concubine and agreed to pay maintenance to his wife, which constituted a pre-existing right of maintenance. The court also held that the settlement deed in favor of the fourth defendant was of no consequence, as the mother had an absolute estate in the property.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to the property acquired by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 under the compromise decree. 2. Whether the third defendant, who claimed to be a tenant under the fourth defendant, had any valid tenancy rights.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to property acquired by a female Hindu in lieu of maintenance, where she has a pre-existing right of maintenance. 2. A settlement deed executed in favor of a person who has no title or right over the property cannot confer any tenancy rights to a third party.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal (S.A. No. 881 of 1985) and dismissed the third defendant's appeal (S.A. No. 880 of 1985).
1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 633 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi are the appellants herein. They filed the suit for partition, to divide the properties into four equal shares and allot two such share to the plaintiffs. Their case is that the suit property originally belonged to their father. The defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiffs. Their mother one Thangammal filed the suit O.S. No. 185 of 1980 claiming maintenance against her husband, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and
2. The said suit was ended in compromise. The father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to give the plaint A and B schedule properties in lieu of her maintenance, apart from paying a sum of Rs.2,500 towards arrears of maintenance and the court expenses. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were given possession of the said properties. Though a restricted life interest had been granted in favour of the mother under the compromise decree, she became a full owner pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are equally entitled to share the plaint schedule properties. Since their father had executed a settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant who is to get the properties after the death of the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2, the fourth defendant is claiming title over the property. Hence the suit.
2. The third defendant claims to be a lessee under the fourth defendant. The first defendant filed the written statement contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as the lessee and the plaintiffs are fully aware about the same. Hence they cannot claim separate possession of the property. The plaintiffs are entitled to have their half share in the lease amount. The first defendant has no objection to ascertain the share of the plaintiffs. The defendants 2, 3 and 4 colluded together to deprive the first defendants lease hold right and set up the third defendant to file a suit O.S. No. 526 of 1982. The fourth defendant does not have any title or right over the property. The second defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the fourth defendant, who is his son. Their, case is that the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 got the property only under the compromise decree and as such it is not open to the plaintiffs to claim that their mother is an absolute owner. They also denied the lease hold right of the first defendant. The fourth defendant claimed title pursuant to the settlement deed executed by his grandfather and also contented that he had leased the plaint A schedule properties to the third defendant. Since the plaintiffs have no right to claim title, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. The third defendant also filed written statement contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the A schedule property as a tenant and his name has been registered in the revenue records under the Record of Tenancy Act.
4. The third defendant filed a separate suit O.S. No. 526 of 1982 for bare injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession on the basis that he is a tenant. The defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 633 of 1983 are the defendants in this suit.
5. On the above pleadings the parties have let in evidence. The trial court, after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, decreed the suit O.S. No. 633 of 1983 finding that the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 got the properties under the compromise decree Ex.A1 and since the properties have been given to her in lieu of maintenance, she became the absolute owner in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further the trial court had dismissed the suit O.S. No. 526 of 1982 filed by the third defendant on the ground that he has denied
