GOPALAKRISHNA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus NARAYANAGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 03-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
GOPALAKRISHNA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
NARAYANAGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal  No.1332 of 2008)
    APRIL 03, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933 – ss. 4,10 and
11 – Limitation Act, 1908 – Arts. 140, 141 and s.28 – Appellants
case that one ‘R’ was the owner of the scheduled properties – He
passed away in 1907 – He had two wives ‘J’ & ‘S’ – From his first
wife ‘J’, he had one daughter ‘V’ and ‘V’ in turn had a daughter
‘JK’ – His first wife predeceased him and daughter ‘V’ died in 1910
– His second wife ‘S’ died in 1938 – Appellants claimed right to
properties by virtue of sale deeds executed by ‘JK’ in the year 1955
– On the other hand, respondents contended that they had
purchased the said property from one ‘SR’, who had in turn
purchased from second wife of ‘R’ i.e. ‘S’ – Respondents were in
possession of the property – Trial court decreed the suit in favour
of appellants and declared them as owner of the properties entitled
them to recover possession from the respondents – However, in first
appeal, the Appellate Court inter alia found that the respondents
were in possession and as the properties were not recovered within
12 years, thus suit was barred by limitation – High Court affirmed
the judgment of the First Appellate Court – On appeal, held: In
1938, ‘S’ passed away – Even proceeding on the basis that ‘JK’,
the grand-daughter of ‘R’ was a reversioner, her estate in expectancy
became vested in her, upon the death of the ‘R’s widow, ‘S’ in 1938
– While it is true that it was open to the reversioner to ignore the
sale deed executed by the widow, as not binding on her, as far as
suit for recovery of possession, the law clearly provided for a period
of 12 years and the period of limitation started with the death of the
limited owner, namely, the widow in 1938 – The time started ticking
with the passing away of the widow in 1938 – The period of limitation
being 12 years, it ran out in 1950 – With the running out of the
period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 (by
Arts.140 and 141), the very right of the alleged reversioner ‘JK’
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 382
  382
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
also came to an end – Thus, when she executed the sale in the year
1955 in favour of the appellants, she could not have conveyed any
right – In such circumstances, no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court  – Hindu Law – Madras School of
Mitakshara Law  – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 31.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  Under the Hindu Law, a widow took a limited
estate. She was not a trustee for the reversioners. She was owner
of the properties. But she could alienate the property only for
necessity or benefit of the estate. By the Mysore Hindu Law
Women’s Rights Act, 1933 the widow’s estate became stridhana,
which by virtue of Section 11 conferred upon her absolute right
to dispose the property either by way of inter vivos transfer or
will. The State Act came into force on 01.01.1934.  When the
succession opened on ‘R’ dying in 1907, he was survived by both
his widow ‘S’ and also his daughter ‘V’. Therefore, it is quite
clear that ‘S’ would not get an absolute right under Section 11 of
the State Act. When succession opened in this case to the estate
of ‘R’, in fact, the State Act was not in force at that time.  The
estate which was inherited by ‘S’ was that of a widow. Therefore,
be it from stand point of Hindu Law as applicable prior to the
State Act or the provisions of the State Act, ‘S’ did not acquire
absolute rights. As such, the right which she had, was the right of
the Hindu widow under Hindu Law.  [Para 23][397-F-H;
398-A-B]
2. Further, as long as ‘S’-widow of ‘R’ was alive, no
reversioners had any vested interest.  The daughter of ‘R’ (‘V’)
through his first wife passed away in the year 1910.  At that time,
‘S’ the widow of ‘R’ was alive.  Therefore, she (‘V’) would not get
any right in the property.  ‘S’ died only in the year 1938.  When
‘S’ died in 1938, no doubt ‘JK’ (daughter of ‘V’) was alive.  It is
here that the Court must consider the argument of the
respondents that the daughter of a daughter was not recognized
as a heir.  When succession opened upon the death of the widow,
in this case, namely ‘S’ in the year 1938, if  ‘JK’ could be treated
as the reversioner being grand daughter of the last full owner,
then the property would vest in ‘JK’.  [Para 23][398-B-D]
GOPALA

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