Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
Kuppathammal
Versus
Sakthi alias Thayammal
A.A.O. No. 95 of 1956
Decided On : 23 August, 1956
GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT - APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN - PROPERTY GUARDIAN - EXTENT OF PROPERTY - RIGHTS OF WIDOWS UNDER HINDU WOMENS RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT - EFFECT OF REPEAL OF ACT XVIII OF 1937 BY HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, XXX OF 1956 - INTERPRETATION OF S. 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, X OF 1897.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Andavan Chettiar, left behind considerable properties. His minor son, Arunthavachelvam, was the sole issue. The deceased also left behind his own mother Kuppathal, who is the appellant in this appeal. Kuppathal filed O. P. No. 67 of 1953 under the Guardians and Wards Act, praying for the appointment of a guardian for the properties of the minor. The two widows of Andavan Chettiar were impleaded as respondents to this petition. The District Judge appointed the mother Thayammal as the property guardian on condition of her furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50,000. The guardian was directed to furnish a draft bond by 1-2-1954. Kuppathammal filed C. M. A. No. 73 of 1954 to this court disputing particularly the sufficiency of the amount of security demanded. The appeal was upheld by the court and the order of the court below was confirmed. The property guardian filed I. A. No. 34 of 1955 for directions that the step-mother might be permitted to realise a fourth of the rents for the properties as she had been doing till then. The District Judge passed an order on 16-2-1955, which owing to its language had been the subject of conflicting interpretations by the parties. Kuppathammal treated this order as one in her favour by reason of its dismissal and the minor being treated as entitled to the entirety of the properties of the deceased thus negativing for the time being at least any rights of the widows under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act. On the other hand, the sentence in the order reading "The minors mother who is the petitioner was appointed guardian only of the minors property" was treated by Venkalakshmi Animal and also by the guardian Thayammal as acceptance of their contention that the property vested in the guardian was confined to property to which share alone the minor had title. In the course of this application for removal of the guardian Kuppathammal filed I. A. No. 74 of 1956 from the order in which the present C. M. A. has been filed. The prayer in this application was to restrain the property guardian from handing over any portion of the income from the entire properties either to Venkalakshmi (the co-widow) or from taking any share to herself.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the guardian was appointed for the entire properties left by the deceased which were treated as the properties of the minor and that consequently neither the guardian nor the co-widow could take or be paid any sums out of the income of the properties without specific directions therefor from the court. The court also held that the widows were each entitled to a fourth share of the income from the estate of the deceased and that the payment of the fourth share to the senior widow and the retention of her fourth share of the income by the guardian were in order. The court further held that the repeal of Act XVIII of 1937 by the Hindu Succession Act, XXX of 1956, did not impair the rights conferred on the widows by Act XVIII of 1937.
Issues: 1. Whether the guardian was appointed for the entire properties left by the deceased or only for the property belonging to the minor? 2. Whether the widows were entitled to a share in the income from the estate of the deceased? 3. Whether the repeal of Act XVIII of 1937 by the Hindu Succession Act, XXX of 1956, impaired the rights conferred on the widows by Act XVIII of 1937?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the guardian was appointed for the entire properties left by the deceased, as evidenced by the amount of security which the guardian was directed to furnish and the reservation as regards the rights of the widows in the appointment order. 2. The court held that the widows were entitled to a fourth share of the income from the estate of the deceased, as they were entitled to the same share as a son in the property of the deceased under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, XVIII of 1937. 3. The court held that the repeal of Act XVIII of 1937 by the Hindu Succession Act, XXX of 1956, did not impair the rights conferred on the widows by Act XVIII of 1937, as the rights had already vested in the widows and were protected by S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, X of 1897.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, on an application under S. 43 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, refusing to grant interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent the property guardian from handing over any portion of the income of the minors properties to the 2nd respondent who is the minors step mother or retaining any portion thereof for herself.
2. The matter has had a considerable amount of previous history and the circumstances in which this application came to be filed were briefly these. One Andavan Chettiar, the father of the minor concerned in this appeal, died on 12-3-1950 leaving considerable properties. This minor boy, by name Arunthavachelvam, was the sole issue of the deceased who left him surviving besides of course this minor child two widows Thayammal and Venkalakshmi Ammal, the former being the mother of the minor. The deceased also left behind him his own mother Kuppathal who is the appellant in this appeal.
Sometime after the death of Andavan Chettiar, the appellant filed O. P. No. 67 of 1953 under the Guardians and Wards Act, praying for the appointment of a guardian for the properties of the minor. The two widows of Andavan Chettiar were impleaded as respondents to this petition. The parties appear to have settled their disputes and reported to the court that the petitioner Kuppathal had no objection to Thayammal, the 2nd respondent, being appointed the guardian of the minors properties on condition however of her furnishing security in a sum which would ensure her administering the minors estate efficiently.
The annual income from the properties left by the deceased appears to have been subject to fluctuations in different years and the District Judge determined the average income at about Rs. 50,000. He thereupon passed an order on 27-1-1954 appointing the mother Thayammal whose rectitude was not impeached in the proceedings as the property guardian on condition of her furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50,000. He however added at the end of this order a reservation which had led to complications. He said :
"The respondents as widows cannot be asked to furnish security in the full sum as they have also certain rights to the .........property, the details and the nature of which I deliberately refrain from discussing in this order."
The guardian was directed to furnish a draft bond by 1-2-1954. Kuppathammal the mother was not satisfied with the condition as to security imposed by the learned District Judge and filed C. M. A. No. 73 of 1954 to this court disputing particularly the sufficiency of the amount of security demanded. The contention raised was that normally the amount of security furnished by a property guardian should, in accordance with the rules framed by this court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, be at least twice the annual income from the property and that no circumstance existed to justify a departure from that rule.
The appeal came on before Balakrishna Aiyar, J., and the learned Judge upheld the order of the court below as regards the quantum of the security as one calculated to further the interest of the minor but he imposed certain other conditions on the guardian which are not relevant in the present context. The learned Judge added "In respect of any other matter that may arise the parties are at liberty to move the District Judge and take his orders." The decision of this court was rendered on 14-10-1954. The next proceeding to be noticed is I. A. No. 34 of 1955, which was an application taken out by the property guardian for directions that the step-mother might be permitted to realise a fourth of the rents for the properties as she had been doing till then.
It was said that since the death of Andavan Chettiar the senior widow had been in enjoyment of the properties which roughly amounted to a fourth share thereof a share to which she was entitled under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and that her
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
