GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. versus GADDAM RAMI REDDY & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 14-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 656 
A 
GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. 
B 
V. 
GADDAM RAMI REDDY & ANR. 
(SLP (C) Nos. 30004-30005 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14(1) - Applicability of 
- If a right is created in a Hindu female for the first time in 
C respect of any property under any instrument or under a 
decree/order/award, where a restricted estate in such property 
is prescribed - Held: Provisions of subsection (1) of s. 14 
would not applicable by virtue of sub-section (2) and would 
not convert such a right into a full-fledged right of ownership 
D of the property - Provisions of s. 14(2) would be attracted -
On facts, courts below rightly held that life-estate created in 
favour of wife by a gift deed executed by husband with the 
stipulation to the effect that after the death of wife, properties 
would devolve on his son, did not enlarge into an absolute 
E estate as contemplated under sub-section (1) of s. 14- Wife's 
rights in the properties would be governed by sub-section (2) 
of s. 14 - On her death, properties devolved on the son in 
terms of gift deed - Life-estate created by husband in favour 
of wife was not in lieu of her maintenance - Also High Court 
F 
rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of res judicata 
in view of the judgment passed in the earlier suit on the said 
issue having attained finality - Res judicata. 
In the year 1952, the husband-'GP' executed a deed 
of gift. He created a life-estate in favour of his wife 'S' and 
G stipulated that after her death the said properties would 
devolve on his son-respondent no. 1, who was then a 
minor. 'GP' expired in 1957. 'S' executed a deed of 
relinquishment in respect of her share and executed sale 
H 
656 
GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v. 
657 
GADDAM RAMI REDDY 
deeds in favour of 'MC' and 'VR'. 'S' also executed a 
A 
registered Will in favour of her grandchildren bequeathing 
the properties which were received by her through gift 
deed. Respondent no. 1 filed a suit against 'MC' and 'VR' 
for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by 'S' in 
favour of 'MC' and 'VR', did not affect his rights in the 
B 
properties. The trial court decreed the suit and the said 
order attained finality. Respondent no. 1 then filed a suit 
for a direction upon the defendants-'MC', 'VR' and others, 
to put him in the possession of the suit properties and 
also for payment of mesne profits. The trial court decreed c 
the suit holding that life-estate created by husband in 
favour of his wife by gift deed could not be said to be an 
interest in lieu ·of maintenance, and the holding in the 
previous suit that life estate did not enlarge into a full-
fledged right of ownership u/s. 14(1) had become final 
0 
and ·any claim through 'S' was void. The High Court 
dismissed the appeals on the ground of res juicata. 
Therefore, the petitioners filed the instant Special Leave 
Petitions. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 If a Hindu woman had any existing interest 
in a property, howsoever small, prior to the enactment of 
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the same would 
blossom into a full-fledged right by virtue of the operation 
of Section 14(1) thereof. On the other hand, the provisions 
of Section 14(1) of the Act, would be attracted if any of 
the conditions contained in the Explanation stood 
fulfilled. If, however, a right is created in a Hindu female 
F 
for the first time in respect of any property under any 
G 
instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or 
under an award, where a restricted estate in such 
property is prescribed, the provisions of sub-section (1) 
of Section 14 would have no application by virtue of sub-
section (2) thereof. The provisions of Section 14(2) of the 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A Act would be attracted and would not convert such a 
right into a full-fledged right of ownership of the property. 
[Paras 16 and 18] [667-A-C; 666-A-D) 
1.2 In the instant case, 'GP' created a life interest in 
8 favour of his wife-'$' in respect of the plaint schedule 
property, but also gifted the property in question to 
respondent no.1, who was then a minor. The principal 
object of the deed of gift executed by 'GP' was that the 
property should ultimately go to respondent no.1. [Para 
C 17] [666-F-G] 
1.3 The deed of gift was considered by both the 
courts below which concurrently held that the life-estate 
created by

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