KOKILAMBAL AND ORS. versus N. RAMAN

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 21-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KOKILAMBAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
N. RAMAN 
APRIL 21, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B. 
Deeds and Documents : 
Deed of settlement-Contingent vesting or absolute vesting-Intention 
of the sett/or to be gathered by reading recitals in the settlement deed as a C 
whole-Hindu widow having no issue had executed two settlement deeds in 
respect of certain property in favour of her deceased husband's nephew--
Recitals in the sett!ement deeds indicated that the sett/or had not completely 
divested her right inf avour of the settlee but it was a cohtingent one which 
was to come into effect after death of the sett/or-Since the settlee died during D 
lifetime of the sett/or, the latter reserved her right to revoke the earlier settlement 
deeds and execute fresh settlement deeds in favour of others-Transfer of 
Property, 1882-Sections 19 and 21. 
The first appellant is a Hindu widow who had no issue. She executed 
two settlement deeds, Al and A2, in respect of certain properties in favour E 
of her dece..lsed husband's nephew. But the settlee died as a bachelor 
during the lifetime of the settlor, i.e. the first appellant, and she revoked 
both the earlier settlement deeds and executed a fresh settlement deed in 
favour of the second and third appellant. Respondent, brother of the 
deceased settlee, filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to the said 
properties after the death of his brother; that the· revocation of earlier F 
two settlement deeds was null and void and that likewise the fresh deed 
of settlement executed in favour of second and third appellant was also 
void. The suit was dismissed. Respondent preferred appeal before the first 
appellate court and it decreed the same. Appeal against that was dismissed 
by High Court, holding that by the instruments of settlement, i.e. Al and G 
A2 a vested right was created in favour of the respondent's brother and 
hence, the first appellant cannot subsequently revoke that settlement and 
execute a fresh settlement in respect of the suit schedule properties in 
favour of second and third appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
839 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Settlement is one of the recognized modes of transfer 
of movable and immovable properties under Hindu law. Courts have 
emphasized that in order to find out the correct intent of the settlor the 
settlement deed has to be read as a whole and draw their inference of its 
B content. (844-G, HJ 
1.2. Sometimes there is absolute vesting and sometimes there is 
contingent vesting as contemplated in Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882. In order to ascertain the true intention of the settlor 
C one has to closely scrutinize the settlement deed, whether the intention of 
the settlor was to divest the property in his l~fe time or to divest the 
property contingently on the happening of certa.in event. (845.-A-B) 
Rajesh Kanta Roy v. Santi Debi, (1957) SCR 77; Usha Subarao v. 
B.N. Vishveswaraiah and Ors., (1996) S SCC 201 and Namburi Basava 
D Subrahmanyam v. Alapati Hymavathi and Ors., [1996) 9 SCC 388, relied on. 
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. SO, paras 589, 591 and 
592, referred to. 
2. The recitals of the settlement deeds i.e. A-1 and A-2 clearly says 
E that since the first a~pellant had no soil, and· her husband during his life 
tim,e has bestowed his love and affection on the respondent's brother, and 
therefore, out of love and affection; she has settled that ~he income derived 
from the suit schedule properties shall be enjoyed J>y herself and the 
respondent's brother, till her life time and after her demise, it shall be 
enjoyed by respondent's brother absolutely. She further authorised him 
F to collect the rental income of the aforesaid property and pay the 
Corporation and land tax, repairs etc. and the remai~der rental amount 
shall be enjoyed by herself arid the respondent's brother in moiety. The 
first appellant furtller settled tha.t she would not alienate the property but 
both of them reserve the right to alienate the property jointly. These 
settlement deeds clearly make out that respondent's brother was not made 
G absolute owner of the property during the life time of the first appellant. 
The first appellant had not completely divested her right in favour of the 
respondent's brother but it was a contingent one that it would vest after 
her death. Therefore, the intention of the settlor was

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