N. PADMAMMA AND OTHERS versus S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 9 S.C.R. 535 
..._. 
N. PADMAMMA AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 2008) 
MAY-16, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
•• 
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain parti-
tion suit - In respect of property, the occupancy right whereof 
had been granted under Abolition of lnams Act in favour of c 
one of the members of joint family- Held: When the occu-
pancy right is granted in the name of the manager of the joint 
family, it enures to the benefit of entire family and hence is 
partible - Right to property being a human as well as constitu-
tional right cannot be taken away except in accordance with 
D 
~ 
law - The Act contemplates only divesting of rights of an 
lnamdar and does not contemplate cessation of a right of a 
co-sharer - The right has to be determined having regard to 
the possession - Possession of one sharer would be deemed 
to be possession of others - Where civil court's jurisdiction is 
E 
expressly ousted by a statute, it must mean that the same is 
confined to the matters covered thereby or connected there-
with -Right of succession cannot be taken away except in terms 
of another statute which has overriding effect; is a complete 
.. ,. 
code; is a later statute; and contains non-obstante clause -
The occupancy right having been given w.e.f. 1955 and the 
F 
Succession Act having come into force w.e.f 1956 the status 
of the owner of the property in 1955 is relevant - Matter re-
ferred to larger Bench for determination of the question in is-
sue - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams 
Act, 1955 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Constitution of In-
G 
dia, 1950 - Articles 14 and 300 A. 
Interpretation of statutes - Statutory provision ousting ju-
risdiction of another court- Interpretation of- Held: Such pro-
535 
H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 
. 
).> 
A vision must receive strict construction. 
Words and Phrases - 'Persons' and 'possession' - Mean-
ing of in the context of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abo-
titian of lnams Act, 1955. 
B 
Respondent No.1, son of the owner of the property 
in dispute was given occupancy rights in respect of the 
property' in terms of provisions of Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, during the 
life time of his father. After the death of his father, some of 
c the members of the joint family (appellants) filed a suit for 
partition. 
The question for consideration in the appeal was that 
whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a Suit 
for partition for division of respective shares amongst the 
.. 
D members of a joint family, when in respect of some of the 
lands, occupancy rights had been granted in favour of 
)--
one of them in terms of the provisions of the Act. 
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court 
E 
HELD: The properties were in possession of the 
owner thereof despite the vesting of the land in favour of 
respondent No. 1. Upon his death the parties hereto in-
herited his right title and interest in the properties. Re-
spondent No.1 being the only male member, assuming 
F he had been cultivating the said land, must be held to have 
~ .. 
been doing so for and on behalf of the members of the 
joint family. [Para 10] [543-D;E] 
1.2 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) abolition of 
lnams act, 1955 did not intend to deprive a co-sharer of 
G his right to which he or she was otherwise entitled to. The 
word 'person' cannot be given a limited meaning. It may 
be a body of persons or association of person. When an 
...,.. 
occupancy right is granted in the name of the Manager of 
the joint family it would enure for the benefit of the entire 
H family. The lands vested in the State. But as soon as the 
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 
537 
REDDY & ORS. 
, "f 
occupancy right is granted, in the event it is held that the A 
same enured to the benefit of the entire family, it becomes 
partible. Occupancy right in favour of the first respondent 
has been granted on 24th October, 1978. In terms of Sec-
tion 8 of the Act the same would be deemed to have been 
granted on or from 20th July, 1955. The provisions, there-
B 
fore, are required to be assigned proper and effective 
meaning. [Para 11] [543-F,G, 544-A] 
1.3 The right of property is a human right. The Act 
contemplates divesting of right of an lnamdar. It does not 
contemplate cessation of a right of a co-sharer or recog- c 
nition of a right in favo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.