LexMUMMAREDDI NAGI REDDI AND OTHERS versus PITTI DURAIRAJA NAIDU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS MUMMAREDDI NAGI REDD! AND OTHERS v. PITTI DURAIRAJA NAIDU AND OTHERS [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 655 Hindu Law-widow-Surrender-Release in favour of daughter and son-in-law-Validity-Suit by reversioner-Right to mesne pro- fits. Where a Hindu widow who had inherited her husband's estate executed a deed, described as a deed of release, in favour of her daughter who w;;s the next reversioner and the daughter's husband jointly : Held, that though under the Hindu Law it is open to a widow to surrender the estate to the next reversioner even though the btter is a female heir, a widow cannot validly surrender in favour of the next female heir and a stranger jointly. Such a transaction cannot be treated as a surrender in favour of the female heir and a transfer by the latter to the stranger, and is not binding upon the ultimate reversioners. /agrani v. Gaya (A.I.R. 1933 All. 8%) approved. Nobo Kishore v. Harinath (1.L.R. 10 Cal. 1102) commented upon. Vytla Sitanna v. Marivada (L. R. 51 I.A. 200), Rangasami Goundan v. Nachiappa Goundan ( 41 I.A. 72) and Debi Prasad v. Gola Bhagat (1.L.R. 40 Cal. 721) referred to. In a suit by the reversioner to set aside an alienation made. by a Hindu widow mesne profits can be awarded to the reversioner from the date of the widow's death even though such an aliena- tion is not void. Even in cases where the decree for possession in favour of the reversioner is conditional on his depositing the amount which has been found to have been used for the benefit of the estate, mesnc profits can be awarded to the re<versioner if he is ordered to pay interest on the amount payable to the alienee. Bhagwat Dayal v. Debi Dayal (L.R. 35 I.A. 48) and Satgur Prasad v. Harinarain Singh (L.R. 59 I.A. 147) referred to. Ban- warilal v. Mahesh (l.L.R. 41 All. 63) distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE No. 51 of 1950. JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated the 12th January, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Gentle C.J. and Satyanarayana Rao J.) m 1951 MayB. !951 Mummareddi Nagi Reddi and Others v. Pitti Durairaja Naidu and Others. Mukherjea. J. 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1951] Appeal No. 167 of 1945 arising out of decree dated the 17th August, 1942, of th~ Subordinate Judge at Nellore in 0. S. No. 3 of 1940. K. Rajah Aiyar (R. Ganapathi Iyer, with him) for the appellants. B. Somayya (M. Krishna Rao, with him) for the respondents. 1951. May 8. The judgment of the Court was deli- vered by MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated the 12th January, 1948, reversing in part, a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore passed in 0. S. No. 3 of 1940. To appreciate the material facts of the case and the controversy that now centres between the parties, it would be convenient to refer to a short genealogy which is given below :- I Durairaja Plff. I. U da tha Narayanappa :_Chanchamma ( d. 1933) I Venkata Narasamma (d. "1926) -Pitti Rangayya (d. 1914) ·I I Vcnkatadri-Rajakantamma I Rajavathi Plif. 2. I Balakrishna Plff. 3. Krishnababulu Plff. 4. The properties in dispute which are described in schedule A to the plaint admittedly belonged to one Narayanappa who was the father of the paternal grand- mother of the plaintiffs. Narayanappa died intestate sometime before 1884 leaving him surviving his wife Chanchamma and a daughter named Venkata Nara- samma. Narasamma was married to one Pitti Ran- gayya and they had a son named Venkatadri, who was. the father of the plaintiffs. Chanchamma died in S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 657 March, 1933, and the plaintiffs aver that they being the heritable bandhus of Narayanappa as the daughter's son's sons of the latter and there being no nearer heir in existence, they became entitled to all the properties left by Narayanappa on the death of his widow. It appears thar on 22nd February, 1894, Chanchamma executed, what has been described as a deed of release, in favour of her daughter Narasamm;i and her son-in- law Pitti Rangayya, under which the entire estate of Narayanappa came into the possession of the latter. After the execu.tiol.1 of this document, the daughter and ~n-in-law of Chaachamma began to deal with the properties left by Narayanappa as their' own and entered into variou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.