Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. S. Ramachandra Iyer, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice. K.S.Ramamurthi
Rangaswami Naicken
Versus
Chinnammal
L.P. A. No. 104 of 1962. (1st day of Sarvana, . 1885, Saka).
Decided On : 23 July 1963
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - ENLARGEMENT OF LIMITED ESTATE - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY WIDOW UNDER HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 - WHETHER SECTION 14 APPLIES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - EFFECT OF COMPROMISE DECREE ON WIDOW'S ESTATE - VALIDITY OF GIFT OVER IN REMAINDER.
Fact of the Case:
A Hindu widow, Angammal, obtained a half-share in her husband's properties under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. She entered into a compromise with her grandson, the appellant, whereby she was to enjoy the properties without prejudice to her right, and the appellant was to continue in possession as a tenant paying rent. The compromise also contained a gift over in favor of the appellant after Angammal's lifetime. Subsequently, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, which enlarged the limited estate of Hindu women into an absolute one. Angammal made a testamentary disposition of the properties in favor of her daughters, the respondents. The appellant challenged the validity of the will, claiming that Angammal had only a limited estate under the compromise and that section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act prevented the enlargement of such an estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compromise decree merely recognized Angammal's pre-existing right under the law and did not confer any new title on her. The gift over in favor of the appellant was void as it was repugnant to the nature of Angammal's estate as a Hindu widow. Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply to Angammal's case as her acquisition of property under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act was not covered by the categories of documents specified in the provision. Therefore, Angammal acquired an absolute title to the properties and was competent to dispose of them by a will.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise decree conferred a new title on Angammal or merely recognized her pre-existing right under the law. 2. Whether the gift over in favor of the appellant was valid. 3. Whether section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applied to Angammal's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the compromise decree along with the terms of the compromise to determine the nature of Angammal's estate. It held that the decree merely recognized her pre-existing right as a Hindu widow under section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. 2. The court applied the rule of repugnancy to hold that the gift over in favor of the appellant was void. It reasoned that a Hindu widow's estate and a vested remainder cannot co-exist. 3. The court interpreted section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act to hold that section 14(2) did not apply to Angammal's case. It reasoned that the acquisition of property by a widow under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act was not covered by the categories of documents specified in section 14(2).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the validity of Angammal's will. It held that Angammal acquired an absolute title to the properties under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and was competent to dispose of them by a will.
Kariakali Naicken, a resident of Vethilakalipalayam in Coimbatore district, who with his son Sinnamma Naicken, constituted a joint Hindu family, owned the two items of properties, which now form the subjectmatter of this litigation. The appellant is the son of Sinnamma Naicken. Even before he was born, Sinnamma Naicken appears to have executed a release of his interest in the joint family properties in favour of his father. But that circumstance has little bearing to this case as it has been admitted that even after such release the father and son and subsequently they along with the appellant lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The properties can therefore be regarded as coparcenary properties of Kariakali Naicken and his grandson after the death of Sinnamma Naicken who predeceased his father. Kariakalai Naicken died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his widow Angammal, three daughters (who are the respondents to this appeal) and his grandson, the appellant.
By virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Womens’ Right to Property Act, 1937, Angammal became entitled to a half-share in the properties of the family the other half vesting in the appellant. Misunderstandings, however, arose between the two persons, the outcome of which was a suit O.S.No. 63 of 1952 in the District Munsif’s Court, Coimbatore, by Angammal, for an injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with her possession. The suit, though contested at the beginning terminated in compromise. The substance of the arrangement was that Angammal was to be declared entitled to half a share of the properties, but possession of that share was to be with the appellant so long as he paid her rents stipulated. The terms of the compromise being material for the purpose of this case we give below certain relevant clauses thereof.
1. “The plaintiff (Angammal) be and hereby entitled to half-share of all the properties of her husband;
2. that the first defendant (appellant herein) do enjoy the plaint properties without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in the suit property.”
Clauses 3 to 5 then provide for payment by the appellant past and future mesne profits and for recovery of possession of the half-share in case there be default in the due payment of future rents.
Clause 9 which is material states:
“that the first defendant shall be entitled to the suit properties after the plaintiff’s lifetime.”
Clauses 1 and 9 are not very clear as to the extent and nature of the estate given to Angammal in the family property, the former implying an absolute estate, while the latter would if given effect to cut down the estate given into a life-estate. To resolve that ambiguity, it would be permissible for us to refer to the terms of the compromise which afforded the basis on which the decree was passed. The memorandum of compromise is in Tamil and is attached to the decree itself. Clause I thereof is to the following effect:
“It is agreed that the plaintiff (Angammal) would be entitled under the law to a half-share in all properties which belonged to her husband and that the first defendant (appellant) should enjoy the suit properties without prejudice to such a right.”
Both the parties to the compromise enjoyed their respective properties in accordance with the terms thereof. While so, the Central Legislature passed the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (XXX of 1956): that became effective on 17th June, 1956 when the President gave his assent to it. Under section 14 of the enactment every property (subject to the exceptions mentioned therein) held under a limited right under the law by a Hindu female vested, forthwith in her with absolute rights. Angammal, claiming that by reason of section 14 (1) of the Act, she became entitled to a full disposable interest in what she held, made on 7th March, 1957, a testamentary disposition of the same in favour her daughters the respondents herein. Soon afterwards i.e., on 25th March, 1957, the testatrix died. The right of
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
