BHOOMIREDDY CHENNA REDDY AND ANR. versus BHOOSPALLI PEDDA VERRAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 28-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHOOMIREDDY CHENNA REDDY AND ANR. 
v. 
BHOOSPALLI PEDDA VERRAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1996. 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sectio11 14( 1). 
Husba11d bequeathed prope1ties to his wife u11der a Will in 1947-Right 
C grantM to wife to enjoy prope1ties for life-time-Held, after 1956 Act came 
into force, she became absolute owner as her limited right of enjoying the 
prope1ties dwing her lifetime for her mai>1te11a11ce ripe11ed iltto an absolute 
estate u11der sectio11 14( 1) of the Act-Her limited right e11larged i11to absolute 
right-She became an absolute owner of property. 
D 
C. Masilama11i Mudaliar & Ors. v. Idol of Shli Swaminathanswami 
171i1ttkoil & Anr., (1996] 8 SCC 525, relied on. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : Section 34. 
Pe1petual i11jw1ctio11-Prope1ties bequeathed to wife by husba11d under 
E a will executed i11 1947-Right given to wife to e11joy properties during life 
time-Remai11der vested in respo11dents who were sons of sister of wife-Wife 
held the properties duri11g her lifetime and died i11 1965C-After demise of wife 
responde11ts came i11 possessio11 of properties which were mutated in their 
names-!11 1951 the appellants who were so11s of the brother of husband 
p purchased some of the properties, the subject matter of the Will from the 
respondents-Appellants started inteifering with possession and e11joyment of 
properties-Suit filed by responde11ts for a pe1petual inju11ction-Suit decreed 
by Trial Court a11d affimied by First Appellate Court-Appellants' appeal 
dismissed by High Court-Appeal preferred before Supreme Cowt-Held 
when the respo11dents have been in possession and got their names mutated 
G in assertion of their right, right from 1947, may be it was open to them to 
contend that they remained in possession in assertion of their own right even 
tu the knowledge of the appellants and the appellants had acquiesced to 
it-Purchase of the properties from them by the appellants themselves may 
lend assurance to that assertion-Therefore, it would be open to them to raise 
H that plea, had the appellants asserted their right-But 110 such issues were 
332 
• 
BHOOMIREDDY CHENNAREODYv. BHOOSPALIPEDDA VERRAPPA 
333 
raised as no such plea was taken-Under these circumstances the injunction A 
was rightly granted against the appellants. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 566 of 
1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.79 of the Andhra Pradesh B 
High Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1977. 
K. Madhava Reddy and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants. 
A. Subba Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellants are sons of the brother of Bhoomireddy Pedda Chen-
naiah. The respondents are the sons of the sister of Laxmamma, widow of 
Pedda Chennaiah. Pedda Chennaiah during his life time had bequeathed 
c 
all his properties to his wife Laxmamma by his registered Will dated May D 
12, 1947 with right to enjoy the property with vested reminder in the 
respondents with absolute right and he died on May 25, 1947. Laxmamma 
held the property <juring her life time and she died on October 21, 1965. 
When the appellants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment 
of the plaint sc~edule properties, the respondents filed O.S. No. 187/69 in E 
the Court of District Munsif at Anantapur for a perpetual injunction. The 
trial Court decreed it. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed 
the same. In the Second Appeal No. 437/77, by judgment and decree dated 
February 21, 1979 the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh dismissed 
the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
F 
Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellants, is right in his contention that Laxamamma having inherited the 
properties under the Will executed by her husband Pedda Chennaiah, as 
a limited owner, after Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, became 
an absolute owner as her limited right of enjoying the property during her 
life time for her maintenance ripened into' an absolute estate under Section G 
14(1) of that Act and that she died as full owner of the said properties. 
The legal position in this behalf is settled by this Court in C. Masilamani 
· Mudaliar& Ors. v. Idol of Shri Swaminathanswami Thirukoil &Anr., [1996] 
8 sec 525, wherein it has been held that the properties given to the wife 
by the husband under his Will for maintenance must be constr1;1ed to have H 
33
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.