BASANTI DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS versus RATI RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 08-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
BASANTI DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS
v.
RATI RAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7919 of 2011)
MAY 08, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.14(1) and (2) – Applicability
of – Suit filed by predecessors-in-interest of respondents against
‘SL’, predecessor-in-interest of appellants – Compromise decree was
passed wherein ‘SL’ was given limited right to use the suit land and
on his death his wife,‘C’ would also have limited right in the land
and on her death the land would revert to the respondents-plaintiffs
– ‘SL’ died whereafter mutation was entered in favour of ‘C’ – After
‘C’ died, respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for possession – Suit decreed
by trial court – First Appellate Court reversed the decree – High
Court restored the decree of trial court – Plea of appellants-
defendants that ‘SL’ had subsisting interest in the land as he was
the owner and possessor of the land even before the compromise
decree and therefore, ‘C’ had right in his property and thus, she
acquired absolute ownership right by virtue of s.14(1) and therefore,
High Court was not right in holding that the case falls u/s.14(2) –
Held: s.14(1) does not recognize the pre-existing right of a male
Hindu – ‘SL’ was granted limited right not in recognition of his pre-
existing right – In terms of the compromise decree ‘SL’ merely got
restrictive possessory rights – Suit property never became the self
acquired property of ‘SL’ – His widow ‘C’ did not hold the land in
lieu of maintenance which can be enlarged into absolute ownership
by virtue of s.14(1) – There were no pre-existing rights of either
‘SL’ or his widow ‘C’ – ‘C’ could not have acquired a better right
than her husband had in the property in dispute – Therefore, her
right would not mature into full-fledged ownership by virtue of
s.14(1) – She acquired the right by virtue of compromise decree for
the first time and, therefore, s.14(2) would apply to the instant case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 ‘SL’ merely got restrictive possessory rights
in terms of the compromise decree. The compromise decree
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1029
1029
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
categorically provided that the suit property was to revert to the
predecessors of the respondents-plaintiffs in case ‘C’, the widow
of ‘SL’ predeceased him and in case ‘SL’ predeceased ‘C’, the
latter was entitled to use the same during her life time. Thereafter,
the suit property would revert to the predecessors of the
respondents-plaintiffs. It is thus clear that ‘SL’ was given a limited
right in respect of the suit property. [Para 11][1034-C-D]
1.2  After the death of ‘C’, the plaintiffs were entitled to
the possession of the land. It is clear that ‘SL’ was granted limited
right not in recognition of his pre-existing right. Section 14(1) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not recognize the pre-
existing right of a male Hindu. The suit property never became
the self acquired property of ‘SL’.  Even his widow ‘C’ did not
hold the land in lieu of maintenance which can be enlarged into
full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act. The estate
was conferred on ‘C’ by virtue of the decree which created a new
right. There were no pre-existing rights of either ‘SL’ or his widow
‘C’. The property in her hands came as a result of she being a
successor of ‘SL’. ‘C’ would not have acquired a better right than
‘SL’ in the suit property. The rights of ‘SL’ as well as ‘C’ flew
from the consent decree. [Para 12][1034-E-G]
1.3 In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show
that the property in the hands of ‘C’ came in lieu of maintenance
or on account of arrears of maintenance.  The property in her
hands came as a result of she being a successor of  ‘SL’. ‘SL’ did
not possess any property. He had only life interest in the property
which did not enlarge into a full right because Section 14(1) does
not recognize the pre-existing right of a Hindu male. ‘C’ could
not have acquired a better right than her husband had in the
property in dispute. She had acquired the right by virtue of the
compromise decree for the first time. Therefore, Section 14(2)
would apply to the instant case. [Paras 13,  14][1035-B-D]
V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (dead) by Lrs.
(1977) 3 SCC 99 : [1977] 3 SCR 261 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
[1977] 3 SCR 261
distinguished
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7919
of 2011.
From the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.