ERAMMA versus VERRUPANNA & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 18-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

./ 
626 
ERAMMA 
v. 
VERRUPANNA & ORS. 
November 18, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu 
Succession 
Act 
(30 of 1956), ss, 8 and 14(1)-1/ s. 8 
retrospecti"ve-Scope of s. 14(1)-Possession by female as trespasser-
!/ title conferred. 
On the death of the last male holder of the properties in d'spute his 
C 
two step mothers got possession of the properties. Claiming to be his 
nearest heirs, respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of posses.ion 
of the properties. After the High Court had, in appeal, passed a decree 
in their favour, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force, and 
when respondents I and 2 sought the execution of the decree in their 
favour, the appellant (who was one of the step mothers) filed objections, 
on the ground that she had been in possession of half the properties since 
]} 
the death of he.r husband, and that by virtue of the provisions of the 
Act, she had become full owner of the properties in her possession. The 
executing court accepted the contention and dismissed the 
execution 
• 
• 
• 
• 
petition. 
But the appeal to the High Court was allowed on the ground 
• 
that the Act did not apply. 
In her appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that : (i) under 
s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, she, being the step mother, was entitled 
E 
to inherit the properties in preference, to respondents 1 and 2, and (ii) 
by virtue of s. 14 she became the full owner of the properties and there-
fore the respondents No. I and 2 could not be allowed to proceed with the 
execution. 
HELD : (i) The provisions of s. 8 are not retrospective in opera-
tion and therefore, where a male Hindu died before the Act came into 
force, that is, when succession opened before the Act, the section will 
have no application. [629 F] 
(ii) At t~ time, of the death of appellant's 
husband 
the 
Hindu 
F 
Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 had not come into force and so, 
when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the appellant had no 
manner of title to the properties. Therefore, though the appellant was in 
possession of properties, that fact alone was not sufficient to attract the 
operation of s. 14. [629 H; 630 DJ 
The object of the section is to extinguish the estate caUed '1imited 
estate" or uwidow's estate" in Hindu law and to make a Hindu woman, 
who under the old law would 
have been only a limited owner, a full 
owner of the propeJ'ty with all powers of disposition and to make the 
estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the 
last male holder. It does not in any way confer a title on the female 
Hindu when she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. The pro-
visions of s. 14(1) cannot be attracted in the case of a Hindu female 
who i• in po'Session of the property of the last male holder on the date 
of the commencement of the Act, when she is only a trespasser without 
any right to the property. [630 G-H; 631 B, CJ 
G 
H 
....
---
• 
ERAMMA v. VERRUPANNA (Ramaswami, J.) 
627 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 742 of: 
B 
c 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 9, 1965 of 
the Mysore High Court in R.A. No. 90 of 1957. 
S. P. Sinha, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for the· 
appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, R. V. Pillai, for respondents 
Nos. 1 and 2. 
M. M. Kshatriya and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
This appeal is brought by the Judgment-· 
debtor, Eramma against the judgment and decree dated June 9, 
1965 in R.A. no. 90 of 1957 of the High Court of Mysore setting· 
D 
aside the order of the District Judge of Raichur dated February 14,. 
1957 dismissing an execution petition. 
The appellant-Eramma-and the 3rd respondent-Siddamma: 
-were, at the relevant time, widows of Eran Gowda who also 
had a third wife-Sharnamma. 
By the said Sharnamma, Eran. 
E 
Gowda had a son called Basanna who died in the year 1347 F. 
(corresponding to 1936-37 AD.) at a time when he was the sole 
male holder of the property in dispute. After his death his step 
mothers Eramma and Siddamma got into possession of the proper-
ties. 
Respondents 1 and 2 thereafter filed a ;suit in the Sadar 
Adalat, Gulbarga claiming that they, as the nearest heirs of Ba-
F sanna, were entitled to all the properties left by him and seeking 
to recover possession thereof from his step-mothers-Eramma 
and Siddamma. The suit was contested by

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