LexG. RAMA versus T.G. SESHAGIRI RAO (D) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 10 S.C.R. 152 G .. RAMA v. T.G. SESHAGIRI RAO (D) BY LRS. · (Civil Appeal No. 4215 of 2008) JULY 7, 2008 .. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH P~NTA, JJ.] Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14( 1) and 14(2) - Appli- C cability of s. 14(1) d?pend on the nature of the right acquired by Hindu female - If she takes it as an heir under the Act, she takes it absolutely - If while getting possession of property after the Act under a devise, gift or other transaction, any re- striction is placed on her right, the restriction will have play in D view of s. 14(2) of the Act - On facts, no evidence Jed to show that widow of son was in possession of property in lieu of main- tenance, hence she cannot claim to be absolute owner of the property T.fle suit property was jointly purchase.d by respon- E dent who was father and by the uncle of the husband of appellant. The uncle relinquished his right, title and inter- est i'n favour of respondent by virtue of release deed. The husband of appellant died and she was permitted to re-'. side in the house as licensee. The respondent filed suit F praying to declare him as absolute owner of suit prop- erty and to direct appellant to deliver vacant possession ,~of suit property. The trial court held that respondent was ·· '" ' only entitled for undivided half share in the suit property and entitled f~r partition and separate possession of his G . half ·Share .. The respondent filed .appeal, which was al-_ lowed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Cou~ HELD : 1. Appellant took the stand .that it was a joint ---H· . 152 - / G. RAMA v. T.G. SESHAGIRI RAO (D) BY LRS. 153 family property and, therefore, she had half share. No A specific issue regarding the nature of the property was framed. There was no issue reiating to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there was also no . evidence led in that regard. Even no evidence was led . specifically to show that in lieu of maintenance she was B permitted to possess the property. Strangely the trial court treated the suit as one for partition though the suit was for declaration. There was no counter-claim filed by ap- . pellant. It is pointed out that uncle of appellant's husband was alive when the trial of the suit proceeded. Before the c High Court an undertaking was given to vacate the pre- mises which was accepted subject to filing of an under- taking which was in fact filed. Two years after a review petition was filed and the same was withdrawn. [Paras 14, 15] [157-G,H; 158-A,B & C] 3. Any acquisition of possession of property (not right) by a female Hindu after the coming into force of the Act, cannot normally attract Section 14 (1) of the Act. It would depend-on the nature of the right acquired by her. .o If she takes it as an heir under the Act, she takes it abso- E lutely. If while getting possession of the property after the Act, under a devise, gift or other transaction, any restric- tion is placed on her right, the restriction will have play in view of Section 14 (2) of the Act. [Para 19] [161-F,G & H] V. Tulasamma and Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (d) by Lrs. F 1977(3) SCC, 99; Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara·Sahib Narike a·nd Ors. 2006(8) SCC 75; Sharad Subramanyan v. Soumi Mazumdar & Ors. 2006(8) SCC 91 ; Eramma v. Verrupanna and Ors. 1966 (2) SCR 626 - relied on. · G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : . Civil Appeal Nos. 4215 of 2008 From the Judgment and final order dated 7/1 /2004 of the . High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 19112000 H 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 $ .. C.R. A Kiran Suri, S.J, Amith and Apama Bhat for the Appellant. B c Raghvendra S. Srivastsa for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJITPASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is:to:thejudgment of a·le.arned SH1gle Judge of the Karnataka High Court aJloWing the appeal. · fJJed··itl. terms of· Section 96.re:adwith OrderXU ofthe·Code: of Civii.Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'G.P;G'). -3. Background facts in a nutshe.11 are as follows: The respondent T.G. Seshagiri Rao who after his death has been substituted by his legal heirs, had filed asuitwith inter alia prayer to declare him as an absolute owner of the plaint 0 schedute.property and to dJrect the defendant (appellant herein) to deliver vacant posse~sion of the suit schedule property. The suit property is a residential house bearing No.2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.