Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3441
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
G. Krishnamoorthy
Versus
Padmavathy & Others
Second Appeal No.145 of 2002 & C.M.P.Nos.2034 and 2034 of 2008
Decided On :Decided On : 13-08-2010
For the Appellant:N. Damodaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, K.M. Nalinishree, Advocate.
The application of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Sections 8 and 15, in determining the inheritance of properties in cases of intestacy.
Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act - Inheritance - Section 8, Section 15 - A schedule property was allotted to Ammathayee Ammal; B schedule to Muthulakshmi; C schedule to Venkatammal; D schedule to Seethalakshmi and E schedule to his adopted son. Ammathayee Ammal died on 12.10.1950. The adopted son of Perumal Naidu had predeceased Ammathayee Ammal and hence his only son Damodara Naidu and his wife Padmavathi (1st plaintiff) filed a suit in the District Court, Nagapattinam for recovery of possession of the properties in O.S.No.54 of 1953. In the said suit, there was a compromise and as per the terms of which, the A schedule property, which devolved on Muthulakshmi Ammal, on the death of Ammathayee Ammal, was shared between Muthulakshmi and Damodaran. Subsequently, Muthulakshmi and her husband Muthukrishnan died and their son, viz., Damodaran also died unmarried. Muthulakshmis only daughter Vatsala got married to one Rajaram and they had one daughter viz., Usha @ Pappa. Vatsala also died. Thereafter, Usha and her father Rajaram also died on the same day on 27.06.1996. Therefore, all the properties of Muthulakshmi have devolved upon the heirs of her parents.
Fact of the Case:
The suit properties were originally owned by Perumal Naidu, who had two wives and adopted a son. Dispute arose regarding the inheritance of the properties after the deaths of Muthulakshmi, her husband, and their daughter Usha.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that neither the plaintiffs nor the 1st defendant was entitled to the suit properties and that the suit properties became escheat due to the failure of heirs. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the parties to the suit properties, the validity of the Will executed by Rajaram, and the application of the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and concluded that neither the appellant nor the respondents were entitled to succeed to the suit properties. The appellate court's reliance on Section 8 of the Act was deemed erroneous.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references indicated separately:
-
The case involves the application of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Sections 8 and 15, in determining inheritance in cases of intestacy [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The original owner of the properties was Perumal Naidu, who had two wives and an adopted son, with subsequent inheritance disputes arising after the death of Muthulakshmi, her husband, and their daughter Usha (!) (!) .
-
The properties were initially allocated through a will and subsequent legal suits, with a compromise leading to shared ownership among heirs, but later disputes arose regarding the rightful heirs after the death of Usha and her father (!) (!) .
-
The legal heirs of Perumal Naidu, as recognized by the respondents, are entitled to inherit the properties, especially after the death of Usha, who was the last known heir through the line of Muthulakshmi (!) (!) .
-
The appellant claims that a will executed by Usha's father, Rajaram, in favor of him, confers him the right to the properties, and that upon the simultaneous death of Usha and Rajaram, the properties devolved upon him (!) (!) .
-
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the properties had escheated due to the failure of heirs, while the appellate court reversed this, granting possession to the plaintiffs. The second appeal challenges this reversal (!) (!) .
-
A key legal issue is whether Sections 8 or 15 of the Hindu Succession Act govern the inheritance in this case. The trial court applied Section 15, which pertains to female heirs, concluding that the properties would revert to the original line of inheritance or escheat. The appellate court erroneously applied Section 8, which relates to male heirs, leading to a reversal of the trial court’s judgment (!) (!) .
-
The court clarified that Section 8 applies only to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate, and since Usha was a female who died intestate, Section 8 is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the inheritance should be governed by Section 15 (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that because Usha died unmarried and her parents predeceased her, the legal heirs under Section 15 are not available, leading to the conclusion that the properties should devolve on the government under Section 29, due to the absence of heirs (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court's reliance on Section 8 was found to be legally incorrect, and its decision was set aside in favor of the trial court’s judgment, which correctly held that the properties would escheat to the government due to the lack of heirs (!) (!) .
-
The suit filed by the respondents for recovery of possession without seeking a declaration of title was considered not maintainable, given the dispute over the ownership rights (!) .
-
The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside, reaffirming the trial court’s decision that the properties should escheat to the government, with no costs awarded (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 made in A.S.No.22 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 made in O.S.No.429 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. The 1st defendant is the appellant herein.
2. The parties are related as under:-
Perumal Naidu (died in 1908)
|
|
-----------------------------
| | |
1st wife adopted son,(E) Ammathayee Ammal (second wife) | (Ramachandran) |(died in 1950) (A)
------------ | ---------------
| | | |
Venkatamma Seethalakshmi Damodaran Muthulakshmi=Muthukrishnan
(C) (D) |(died) (died) (B) | (died)
| | |
------------------- ----------------- |
| | | | | |
Widow daughter son Vatsala Damodaran | (Plaintiffs 1 to 3) (died) (died unmarried |
| in 1995) |
-------------- | | | (Brother)
Husband Daughter Gopalsamy
Rajaram Usha @ Pappa Naidu (died) (died) |
|
|
Krishnamurthy(son)
(1st defendant)
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-
The suit properties were originally owned by one Perumal Naidu, son of Ayyanna Naidu of Virinjur Village. Perumal Naidu had two wives and the name of the second wife was Ammathayee Ammal, through whom, Perumal Naidu had only one daughter, by name, Muthulakshmi. Perumal Naidus first wife also had only daughters, by name, Venkattamma and Seethalakshmi and no sons. Hence, Perumal Naidu had adopted one Ramachandra Naidu as his son, whose son was Damodara Naidu. The said Damodaran Naidu died leaving behind the plaintiffs, who are his widow and children. Perumal Naidu, while in his sound disposing state of mind, had left a Will dated 17.01.1908 and it was registered in the Sub Registrars Office, Nagapattinam on 09.04.1908. In the said Will, A schedule property was allotted to Ammathayee Ammal; B schedule to Muthulakshmi; C schedule to Venkatammal; D schedule to Seethalakshmi and E schedule to his adopted son. Ammathayee Ammal died on 12.10.1950. The adopted son of Perumal Naidu had predeceased Ammathayee Ammal and hence his only son Damodara Naidu and his wife Padmavathi (1st plaintiff) filed a suit in the District Court, Nagapattinam for recovery of possession of the properties in O.S.No.54 of 1953. In the said suit, there was a compromise and as per the terms of which, the A schedule property, which devolved on Muthulakshmi Ammal, on the death of Ammathayee Ammal, was shared between Muthulakshmi and Damodaran. Subsequently, Muthulakshmi and her husband Muthukrishnan died and their son, viz., Damodaran also died unmarried. Muthulakshmis only daughter Vatsala got married to one Rajaram and they had one daughter viz., Usha @ Pappa. Vatsala also died. Thereafter, Usha and her father Rajaram also died on the same day on 27.06.1996. Therefore, all the properties of Muthulakshmi have devolved upon the heirs of her parents. The son of the adopted son, viz., Damodaran also died. Therefore, the plaintiffs are the heirs of Perumal Naidu and his second wife Ammathayee Ammal.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that thereafter, one Gopalsamy, brother of Muthukrishnan, took possession of the properties of Muthulakshmi Ammal without any semblance of right and he also subsequently died within a year. Thereafter, one Krishnamoorthy, son of Gopalsamy, the 1st defendant, took possession of the properties of Muthulakshmi Ammal and he handed over the possession of the landed properties to defendants 2 to 4 under some agreement. After the death of Usha, the daughter of Vatsala, the properties of Muthulakshmi ought to have come into the hands of the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of Perumal Naidu. Gopalsamy Naidu, who is the brother of Muthukrishnan had no right whatsoever in the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a lawyers notice dated 11.07.1999 to hand over possession of the suit properties and filed the suit for recovery of possession and for future mesne profits.
5. On the contrary, it is the case of the 1st defendant that
