LexGOGULA GURUMURTHY & ORS versus KURIMETI AYYAPPA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
GOOULA
GURUMURTHY & ORS.
v.
KURIMETI AYYAPPA
March 14, 1974
[(K. K. MATHEW
AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.]
595
Hindu Law-Limited estate of a widow-Whether ;ncom• fro111. tire.-· lf11sb0nd'~·,·
estate is an accretion to that estaU'.
V, the father of the appellants had a brother R who died child.Tess leaving behind
bim his widow, N. After R's death a series of litigatien started between V &: N.
V filed a suit in 1913 against R. for waste committed by h~r husband's est<1; te and w.as
appointed a receiver in that suit. Jn that suit, be got a decree, V as rcce1 \"Cr filed 3
suits on the foot of 3 mortgages in favour of R. In execution of the decrees, 3 valu·
able properties were purchased. These three properties are the subject matter of the
present appeal.
V died in 1947 and Nin 1951 after executing a will bequeathing in favour of her
brother S all her properties. S filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, for Pos-
session of the properties bequeathed to him under the will and for mesne profits.
The Sub-judge held that the said properties became accretions to the main estate of
R and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled only to an account of the income from
these properties till the death of V. On appeal, the High Court allowed the apP:eal
in part. Before this Court four points were raised by the appellants :-(1) The H!gh
Court committed an error in not hearing the whole appeal but confining the hearing
·merely to the points on which the finding was called for from the lower court. (2) a
portion of the properties which was lost to the estate due to N's negligence of not
paying the land revenue, should be debited against her share in them. (3) the cost
incurred by V in the suit and in the execution proceedings should have been taken.
into account in allocating the properties between the appellants and the respondents
and (4) that the widow N, had treated the properties as accretion to the husband's
estate and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the whole of the property.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : (I) When a finding is called for on the basis of certain issues framed by
the Appellate Court, the appeal is not disposed of either in whole or in rart. There-
fore the parties cannot be barred from arguing the whole appea after the
•findings are received from the Court of first instance. f597 E]
Gopi Nath Shukul \'. Sat Narain Shukul, A.LR. 1923 A11ahabad 384, referred
F
to.
(2) A Hindu widow is entitled to the full beneficial enjoyment of the estate ..
So long as she is not guilty of wilful waste, she is answerable to no one. In her lifC.
time~ the reversionary right is a mere possibility or spes successionis. It cannot be
predicted who would be the nearest reversioner at the time of her death. It is there~
fore, impossible t_o contend that for any loss to the estate due to the neglig~ncc on
the part of the widow, he should be compensated from out of the widow's separate
p~operties. He is entitled only to the property left on the date of the death of the
G
widow.
(599 C; FG]
·
·
·
· ·
· · ·
H
(3) The Income received by V and the amounts spent for tlic suit and the execu~
tion proceeding were taken into account at the time of settlement of accounts and it
wa.s open to V to realise the excess amount from the estate of R. It is not now open
to the appellants to claim that these amounts should be separated from the amount
of the decree and should be added to the amount of principal and interest accrued
during the lifetime of R. (600 A·C]
-
(4) Fro!" the evidence, it is clear that the wi<!ow did not show any intention
to treat the 1ncame from the husband's estate as·an accretion to that estate. {601D]
Akkanna v. Venkayya, I.LR. 1902 25 Mad. 351, referred to.
The appeal was sent back to High Court for hearing afresh.
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 ] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1817 of 1967.
From the judgment and Decree dated the 21st September 1965 of
1.he Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. No. 508 of 1959.
K. R. Choudhury and Veena Khanna, for the. appellants.
M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi;for the respondent,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-Venkanna, the father of the appellants, had
a brother Ramamurti who died childless in the year 1908 leaving behind
Jiim his widow Narasimham. After Ramamurti's death a series of
litigations started between Venkanna and Narasimham and itExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.