Kothi Satyanarayana Vs. Galla Sithayya & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 1972.
Petitioner: Kothi Satyanarayana
Respondent: Galla Sithayya & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 1972.
Judges: O.CHINNAPPA REDDY & R.N.MISRA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 21, 1986
Head Note:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956:
Section 14(1) and 14(2) – Whether life-estate created under a Settlement Deed stands transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) – Deed of Settlement is an instrument contemplat-ed under section 14(2) – If a situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided for in sub-section (1) of section 14 would not take place.
Section 14(1) and 14(2) – Whether life-estate created under a Settlement Deed stands transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) – Deed of Settlement is an instrument contemplat-ed under section 14(2) – If a situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided for in sub-section (1) of section 14 would not take place.
JUDGEMENT:
RANGANATH MISRA, J.
1. This appeal by the defendant is by special leave and chal-lenge is to the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in a Letters Patent appeal.
2. Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after eviction of the defendants and claimed mesne profits both past and future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju happened to be sons of Ramamurty. The two brothers had amicably partitioned their properties in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from Veeraraju’s share in 1928, the widow raised dispute and mediators brought about a settlement leading to the execution of a Deed of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, whereunder Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and upon her death, those properties were to revert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the widow’s death, the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties but defendant 1 who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a will dated May 14, 1962 of the widow.
3. The main question that arose for consideration in the courts below was whether the life estate created in favour of Veeraraju’s widow under the Settlement Deed had been transformed into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three courts have held that the life estate carved out under the 1937 settlement did not get transformed into title in favour of the widow and she did not acquire any alienable interest in the properties to bequeath in favour of her brother.
4. The only question which has been canvassed at the hearing is whether in the facts of the case, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is applicable. It is not disputed that sub-section (2) of Section 14 is an exception to sub-section (1) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided for in sub-section (1) would not take place.
5. The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-section (2) and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 14 would not be attracted. The submission of the appellant’s learned counsel that the Settlement Deed brought the properties covered by it in exchange or in lieu of properties unauthorisedly alienated by Ramamurty and as the widow had full title in the alienated property, title must be held to have accrued in favour of the widow in the properties covered by the settlement cannot be accepted.
6. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
7. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Court.
Appeal Dismissed.
1. This appeal by the defendant is by special leave and chal-lenge is to the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in a Letters Patent appeal.
2. Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after eviction of the defendants and claimed mesne profits both past and future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju happened to be sons of Ramamurty. The two brothers had amicably partitioned their properties in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from Veeraraju’s share in 1928, the widow raised dispute and mediators brought about a settlement leading to the execution of a Deed of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, whereunder Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and upon her death, those properties were to revert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the widow’s death, the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties but defendant 1 who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a will dated May 14, 1962 of the widow.
3. The main question that arose for consideration in the courts below was whether the life estate created in favour of Veeraraju’s widow under the Settlement Deed had been transformed into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three courts have held that the life estate carved out under the 1937 settlement did not get transformed into title in favour of the widow and she did not acquire any alienable interest in the properties to bequeath in favour of her brother.
4. The only question which has been canvassed at the hearing is whether in the facts of the case, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is applicable. It is not disputed that sub-section (2) of Section 14 is an exception to sub-section (1) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided for in sub-section (1) would not take place.
5. The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-section (2) and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 14 would not be attracted. The submission of the appellant’s learned counsel that the Settlement Deed brought the properties covered by it in exchange or in lieu of properties unauthorisedly alienated by Ramamurty and as the widow had full title in the alienated property, title must be held to have accrued in favour of the widow in the properties covered by the settlement cannot be accepted.
6. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
7. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Court.
Appeal Dismissed.
