Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1926
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Thimma.V.Saradha Ammal (Died) and Others - Appellant
Versus
M.N.Kumareshbabu and Others - Respondent
Appeal Suit(MD)No.60 of 2010
Decided on : 05-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. M.S.Suresh Kumar, Mr. R.Ragavendran
For the Respondent: Mr. M.N.Sankaran Mr. J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Additional Government Pleader
A widowed daughter can be termed as a dependent of her father, and her limited right of possession can enlarge to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:
Widow Daughter - Property Rights - Hindu Succession Act - Section 14(1), Section 14(2)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a widowed daughter, claimed absolute ownership of a property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the plaintiff appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was granted possession of the property in lieu of maintenance, and her limited right had enlarged to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: (1) Whether a widowed daughter can be termed as a dependent of her father? (2) Whether a property bequeathed as life-interest in a Will would blossom into full ownership? (3) Whether the claim of the plaintiff is covered under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act? (4) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's right was covered under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and her limited right of possession had enlarged to absolute ownership. The court held that the trial court's judgment required interference.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed with costs.
1. This appeal had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai. By Judgment dated 18.11.2009, the said suit was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff, Thimma.V.Saradha Ammal, had filed the suit against M.N.Kumareshbabu, who was the son of her brother M.K.Nagasamy and against the Collector of Madurai. The second defendant was impleaded, since she had originally filed the suit in forma pauperis. However she was directed to pay necessary Court fees and she also paid the Court fees. The second defendant, subsequent to the order refusing permission to sue as in forma pauperis has become an unnecessary party to the proceedings. However in the first appeal, the second defendant who is shown as second respondent still participated in the proceedings and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Additional Government Pleader was also present during the arguments.
3. The suit in O.S.No.36 of 2008 had been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and for costs of the suit. The suit property was land and building at door no.41-A, T.S.No.1298/3, Block No.16, Ward No.28, Mahal Vadampokki Street, Madurai. The plaintiff's father was Kuppusamy Iyer and her mother was Rajammal. She had two brothers, M.K.Krishnamoorthy, and M.K.Nagasamy, the father of the first defendant.
4. The plaintiff married at the age of 13 years to T.K.Varadhachary. She gave birth to four sons. Her husband died in the year 1955. At that time, she was aged only about 25 years. Her first son Gopinath was aged 8 years. The second son Viswanath was aged 6 years. The third son Sivanath was aged 4 years and the fourth son Premnath was aged 8 months. It had been stated in the plaint that considering her very young age and that she was left a widow with four young children including one infant, her father permitted her to take possession of the suit property from the date of the death of her husband in 1955. She was then maintained by her parents.
5. Thereafter, a partition deed was entered into on 29.06.1969 among her father and two brothers, and the suit property was allotted to her father. She continued to stay in the suit property. He executed a registered Will on 23.04.1975. He gave a life-interest to the plaintiff and her mother and further permitted them to enjoy the income from the property. He then stated that after their death, his grand son, the first defendant would get the property. It was stated in the plaint that in lieu of pre-existing right of maintenance she was given the right of possession, she was also permitted to collect the rental income. She claimed that she had been in continues possession from 1955 till the date of institution of suit for over 51 years. Her mother died on 25.08.1997. She claimed absolute title under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The first defendant through his father M.K.Nagasamy who acted as power agent filed O.S.No.713 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. The suit was dismissed by Judgment dated 09.10.2006. The first defendant claimed a vested remainder interest in the property. Claiming that her life-interest had enlarged to absolute ownership in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration of title.
6. The first defendant in his written statement admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and himself. He stated that the plaintiff was given in marriage to a wealthy family. Her husband's family owned properties near Meenakshiamman Temple and in East Chithrai Street and another in Mynatheppakulam in East Veli Street, Madurai. He claimed that the plaintiff did not require any help from anybody, since her husband's family were owning properties. There was no liability or necessity to maintain the plaintiff. She did not have pre-existing right of maintenance. The Will cannot be misinterpreted as if the property was given in lieu of maintenance. The pro
