NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDE versus KAMALAKARA SHIVARAMA HEGDE AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 16-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDE 
A 
v. 
KAMALAKARA SHIV ARAMA HEGDE AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 16, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937-Section 3(2) and (3)-
Alienation of property by widow for legal necessity-Objection to-Plea that · . C 
alienation not binding on the son as he was the sole owner of the property-
Held, widow. entitled. to full enjoyment of the estate .subject to the limited 
interest known as Hindu Women's Estate, which includes right to alienate the 
property.for legal necessity qfthefamily-Hence, the alienation binding on the 
son-Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947-:Section 37-Civil Pro- , 
cedure Code, 1908-Section 47 and Order IX Rule 9. 
D 
Respondent No. 3, mother of respondent No. 1, after death of her 
husband and when respondent No.1 was in her womb, borrowed money• 
from respondent No. 2 out of legal necessity, and executed promissory 
note in his favour. Respondent No. 2, for recovery of the amount, ob-
E 
tained award against respondent No. 3, wherein charge was created over 
the land in dispute. In execution of the award, the land was auctioned and 
the same was purchased by the appellant • auction purchaser. Respondent 
No.1 filed application under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 47 
C.P.C. on the ground that he was the sole owner of the property after 
death of his father and the auction sale was void as respondent No. 3, his , F 
mother was not the owner of the property. The application was dismissed 
on the ground that auction sale was binding on ilte applicant-respondent 
No. 1 as the land was sold by his mother for legal necessity and because he 
had not assailed the transaction on the ground of immorality or absence 
of legal necessity. 
G 
Appeal against the order of the trial court was allowed. Revision 
petition by appellant-auction purchaser was dismissed by High Court. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
185 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
. HELD : 1. The allegation of the appellant that he was the sole 
owner of the disputed land is not sustainable in law. Widow succeeds as a 
heir to her husband. The ownership o~ properties vests in her. She fully 
represents the estate, the interest of reversioners therein being only spes 
successionis. In the present case after the death of her husband, the widow, 
the opposite Party No. 3 succeeded to the property o(her husband and she 
was entitled to full enjoyment of the estate subject to limited interest 
known as Hindu Women's Estate. This right includes right to alienate.the 
property for legal necessity of the family. 
2. I~ tht: case in hand the disputed land.was sold for legal necessity. 
There is no averment or evidence to show that there was no legal neces-
sity. Therefore, the sale i~ question is binding on the appellant, who is a 
reversioner. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2930 of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.84/1.3.84 of the Karnataka 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 1992 of 1977. 
. 
. 
. 
' 
S.S. Javali and P.R. Ramasesh for the App~llant. 
I 
' 
, 
• 
~E 
K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde for P.P. Singh for the Respondents. 
F 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has assailed 
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Civil Revision 
Petition No. 1992 of 1977. The parties herein shall be referred to as arrayed 
in the application filed under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors 
Relief Act, 1947 (foqhort 'the Act') read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure before the learne~ Munsif at Sirsi, Karnataka. 
:Briefly stated the facts are as follows : 
The applicant before the learned Munsif, Kamalara is the son pf the 
opposite party No. 3 vii. Smt. Yenki. Shri Ganpathi 9pposite party No. 2 lent 
a sum of Rs. 650'to the opposite party No. 3, who executed a promissory note 
in his favour. The opposite party No. 2 filed an application against Smt. Yenki, 
H 
opposite party No. 3 under"the provisions of the Act and obtained an award 
...... 
, NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDE v. KMtALAKARA SHIV ARAMA HEGDE [~HUKAN, J.] 
187 . 
on 23.9.1948. By the award a charge was created over the properties mentioned 
in the aware! which included the prese~t disputed land. 1:he ~ward was put into 
execution and the disputed suit land was auctioned. Shri Narayan, opposite 
party No. 1 purchased it in cour

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