LexGUMMALAPURA TAGGINA MATADA KOTTURUSWAMI versus SETRA VEERAVVA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Raja Bahadur /(. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath ilfisra and Others Imam]. December I9. 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. any corrupt practice under s. 123 had been established in the case and the election of the appellant could not be set aside on the only ground on which his election had been set aside by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the election peti- tion of respondent No. l is dismissed. Appeal allowed. GUMMALAPURA TAGGINA MATADA KOTTURUSWAMI v. SETRA VEERA VV A AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Hindu Law-Widow in possession of husband's property- Adopted son getting into possession-Adoption invaUd-Wheti}er widow is in constructive possession-•• Property possessed by a female Hindu", Meaning of-Hindu Succession Act, r956 (30 of ~~ r956), s. I4. Sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provided : "Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner." A suit instituted by the nearest reversioner of K for a declaration that the adoption made by K's widow was invalid, was dismissed and during the pendency of the appeal filed against the decree dismissing the suit, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. At the hearing of the appeal the respon- dent raised the preliminary objection that even if the adoption were held to be invalid, the appellant's suit must fail in view oi the provisions of s. 14 of the Act under which K's widow, who was a party to the suit and the appeal, would be entitled to a full ownership of her husband's properties; while it was urged for the appellant that s. 14 of the Act did not apply to the facts of the case because the properties were not in the possession of K's widow, but were only with the 11dopted son at the time the Act came into force. ' Held, that the word "possession" in s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is, used in the widest connotation and it may be either actual or constructive or iq any form recognised by law. -· < (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 969 Gostha Behari v. Haridas Samanta, A.LR. 1957 Cal. 557, 1958 } approved. In the present case, if the adoption was invalid K's widow Kottmuswami. would be the full owner of K's estate, and even if it be assumed v. that the adopted son was in actual possession <ilf the estate, his Vuravva possession was merely permissive and K's widow must be regard- ed as being in constru<>tive possession of it through him. Accord- ingly, s. 14 was applicable and as K's widow became a full owner of her husband's estate, the appellant's suit was not main- tainable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 25, HJ49, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 55 of 194:6, arfaing out of the judgment and decree dated November 26, 1945, of the Court of the District Judge of Bellary in Original Suit No. 39of1943. · A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Ohaudhury for B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellant. K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for tho respondents. 1958. December 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-This 3.ppeal is before us on a certificate granted by the High Court as according tu that Court a substantial question of law arose in the case which was dtated by it to be " Is the adoption of the seooad defendant invalid, as the approval or consent of the five trustees mentioned in paragraph 14 of the will of Kari Veerappa, Exbt. l?-2(a) was not obtained; and is the authority to adopt at an end if any one of those five persons did not accept the trusteeship or died before the adoption or refui>ed to give their.approval". In view of certain 1ha.tters about to be stated, the question of law as propounded by the High Court does not require to be considered. Kari Veerappa was the last male owner of the estate mentioned in his will, Exbt. P-2(a), which he executed on October 10, 1920. Under this will he authorised his wife Setra. Veeravva., first defendant, to adopt a son for ·the purpose of continuation of his family as lrnam J. K ottsu uswan1i v. Veeravv!l lma111 ]. 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. he had no issue. The authority to adopt was in the following terms : "I have given her permission to adopt as many times as would be necessary, sho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.