KOTHI SATYANARAYANA versus GALLA SITHAYYA & OTHERS

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 21-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
I 
KOTHISATYANARAYANA 
A 
v. 
- GALLA SITHAYYA & OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 21, 1986 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ) 
B 
Hindu Succession Act 1956, s. 14-Life estate created infavour of widow 
.by Settlement Deed-When can be transformed into full ownership. 
Under a deed of settlement dated August 18, 1937, the respondent's 
father settled certain properties on the widow of his son With life interest and c 
upon her death those properties were to revert to the Settlor or his heirs. After 
the widow's death, the respondent claimed the properties under the aforesaid 
deed of settlement. However, the appellant, brother of the widow set up title 
thereto under a Will executed by the widow on May 14, 1964. 
The question that arose for consideration in the courts below. was D 
whether the life-estate created in favour of ihe widow under the Settlement 
Deed. had been transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) of the 
Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and all the three courts held that the life-estate 
carved out under the 1937 Settlement' did not get ln!nsformed into title in 
favour of the widow and she did not acquire any allienable interest in the 
properties to bequeath in favour of her brother. 
E 
Dlsmis.sing the apJieal by the ap~llant, 
HELD: 1. Sub"5.2 of s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is an 
exception to su!H. l thereof and if the situation is covered by suH. 2, the 
transformation provided for in su!H. l would not take place. [360F] , 
F 
The settlement deed -in the instant case, is an inStrument contemplated 
under su!H: 2 and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the 
widow. Therefore suH. l of s.14 would not be attracted. [360G] 
· CIVIL APPELtATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 1972 G 
From the Judiinent and Order dated 4.8.1971 of the Audhra P,radesh 
High Court in CP .A. No. 48 of l 969 
A.S. Nambiar, G.N. Rao and Attar Singh for the Appellant. 
359 
H 
A 
B 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] I S.C.R. 
G.S. Ramaiah, and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
RAN GANA TH MISRA, J. This appeal by the defendant is by Special 
Leave and challenge is to the decision of a division bench of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent appeal. 
Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after eviction of the defendants 
and claimed mesne profits both past and future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju 
happened to be sons of Ramamurty. The two brothers had amicably 
C 
partitioned their properties in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his 
widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from Veeraraju's share in 1928, 
the widow raised dispute and mediators brought about a settlement leading to 
the execution of a Deed of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, whereunder 
Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and upon 
her death, those properties were to reyert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the 
D 
widow's death, the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties 
but defendant No. I who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a 
Will dated May 14, 1962,of the widow. 
The main question that' arose for consideration in the courts below was 
whether the life-estate created in favour of Veeraraju's widow under the 
E 
Settlement Deed had been transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) 
of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three courts have held thatthe life-
estate carved out under the 1937 settlement did not get transformed into title in 
favour of the widow and she did not acquire any alienable interest in the 
properties to bequeath in favo\lr of her brother. 
F 
G 
The only question which has beec. canvassed at the hearing is whether in 
the facts of the case, sub-section (I) or st.b-section (2) of section 14 of the Act is 
applicable. It is not disputed that sub-section (2) of section 14 is an exception to 
sub-section (I) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-section (2), the 
transformation provided for in sub-seC':ion (I) would not take place. 
The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-section 
(2) and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. 
Therefore, sub-section ( 1) of section 14 would not be .'lllracted. The submission 
·of the appellant's learned counsel that the Settlement deed brought the 
properties covered by it in exchange or in lieu of properties unauthorisedly 
. alienated by Ramamuriy a

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