Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. VIMALA, J.
Jayalakshmi Ammal
Versus
Kaliaperumal
Second Appeal No. 471 of 1993
Decided On : 29-04-2014
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - INTERPRETATION - ABSOLUTE ESTATE OR LIMITED ESTATE - MAINTENANCE - CONSENT FOR SECOND MARRIAGE - PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - RECITALS - CONSTRUCTION - ENLARGEMENT OF LIMITED ESTATE INTO ABSOLUTE ESTATE - PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT - GENDER EQUALITY - SOCIAL JUSTICE - HISTORICAL CONTEXT - INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE - OBJECT OF SECTION 14 - PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - SETTLEMENT DEED - RESTRICTED INTEREST - ENLARGEMENT INTO ABSOLUTE ESTATE - CONDITIONS - ALIENATION BY SETTLEE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The first wife of Dharmarajpillai, the second defendant, Swarnathammal, challenged the alienation made by her husband in favor of the second wife, Jayalakshmi, who claimed the property as per the settlement deed, Ex.A2, executed by her husband. The main issues were whether the recitals in the settlement deed conferred limited estate or absolute estate upon the settlee and whether the instrument allotting the property prescribed a restricted interest in the property, if the property was bequeathed towards her pre-existing right to maintenance and if the bequeath did not fall within the ambit of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it would get enlarged into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the recitals in the settlement deed, Ex.A2, executed by the husband in favor of his first wife for the purpose of facilitating his second marriage, would confer absolute estate upon the settlee. The court further held that even if the instrument allotting the property prescribed a restricted interest in the property, if the property was bequeathed towards her pre-existing right to maintenance and if the bequeath did not fall within the ambit of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it would get enlarged into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the recitals in the settlement deed, Ex.A2, executed by the husband in favour of his first wife for the purpose of facilitating his second marriage, would confer limited estate or absolute estate upon the settlee? 2. Even if the instrument allotting the property prescribes a restricted interest in the property, if the property is bequeathed towards her pre-existing right to maintenance and if the bequeath did not fall within the ambit of Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whether it would get enlarged into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in light of its purpose and the historical context of its enactment. The court held that the object of Section 14 was to remove the disability of a female to acquire and hold property as an absolute owner and to convert the right of a woman in any estate held by her as a limited owner into an absolute owner. The court further held that the amendment to Section 14 was brought into effect to ameliorate the conditions of certain class of persons, who according to present day notions, may not have been fairly treated in the past. The court also held that the conferment of property with limited right to enjoy (alone) can only offer a solace to a minimum extent that the woman need not beg for food. In other respects, her right cannot be said to have received any protection. Under such circumstances, if the interpretation that the woman will get only limited right is given, it would amount to encouraging more men to create broken families and to promote illegal activities, which is not conducive for an orderly society.
Final Decision: The second appeal filed by the second wife / 2nd plaintiff was dismissed. The judgment and decree, dated 08.12.1987, in A.S.No.213 of 1986 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, upholding the sale in favor of the first defendant, was confirmed. The suit in O.S.No.12 of 1984, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, dated 04.03.1986, was dismissed, so far as the first item of the suit property was concerned.
Fishbowl existence; other people's insensitivity; ridicule even from friends; hurt by the husband; criticism and ostracization from the family and society; frustration because of ill-treatment, yet only limited options -all because of the myth that infertility is always a woman's problem. This is the status of married women, who do not become pregnant. Though women alone are not the cause for this issue, yet, the problem of infertility has broken many homes, separated many couples and caused disharmony among couples while they were living together. Parenthood is the expected status, expected immediately after marriage and out of the couple, it is women who expect more. They themselves ignorantly hurt by asking the question, “it is so natural, why can't I?”, and also by believing that childbearing is the ultimate expression of “femininity” - without understanding the real cause for the problem. Even then, others make the life of women miserable and make women feel inadequate and incomplete as if they are the cause for the failure. The most inhuman form of insult is the husband getting married while the first wife is alive, trying to justify the second marriage in the name of giving gift of property to the first wife. This is one such classic case.
2. The second wife, who entered into the life of Dharmarajpillai, while the first wife was alive, challenges the alienation made by the first wife, who claims the property as per the settlement deed, Ex.A2, executed by her husband.
A. Whether the recitals in the settlement deed, Ex.A2, executed by the husband in favour of his first wife for the purpose of facilitating his second marriage, would confer limited estate or absolute estate upon the settlee?
and
B. Even if the instrument allotting the property prescribes a restricted interest in the property, if the property is bequeathed towards her pre-existing right to maintenance and if the bequeath did not fall within the ambit of Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whether it would get enlarged into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?
-are the main issues to be considered in this second appeal.
3. The second plaintiff, Jayalakshmi, who is the second wife of Dharmaraj Pillai, is the appellant. Her minor son, since deceased, is the first plaintiff. Kaliaperumal, who is the first defendant is the purchaser of the property from the second defendant / the first wife of Dharmaraj Pillai, i.e., Swarnathammal.
3.1. The second plaintiff filed the suit informa pauperis in O.P.No.33 of 1983 / O.S.No.12 of 1984 (along with her minor son, Iyyappan), seeking the relief of declaration in respect of first item of the suit property, that the first plaintiff is entitled to first item of the suit property, after the death of the second defendant and further seeking a relief of declaration that both the plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to second item of the suit property as well as possession.
3.2. The said suit was decreed. The first defendant, Kaliaperumal, filed an appeal in A.S.No.213 of 1986 and the appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the second plaintiff has filed this second appeal, only as against the first defendant, in respect of the first item of the suit property. The first defendant did not claim any right over the second item of the suit property. Therefore, this second appeal is limited only to the first item of the suit property.
4. The parties will be referred to in this second appeal as per their rank before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
5. Brief facts:-
One Dharmarajpillai had two wives. The first wife was the second defendant, Swarnathammal. They had no issues, though they lived together for 26 years. Therefore, Dharmarajpillai wanted to marry for the second time, but with the consent of the second defendant. Consent was expressed through a registered document, dated 19.11.1965, executed by the second defendant in favour of her husband. Thereafter
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
