LexPUNITHAVALLI AMMAL versus RAMALINGAM (MINOR) AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
894
PUNITHAVALLI AMMAL
\'.
'
RAMALINGAM (MINOR) AND ANR
March 4, 1970
[J. e. SHAH, K. s: 'HEGoE '.ANo A. N. GRovER, JJ.J
'
Hindu La11·-Wlzet/1er full 011•11ership acquired by widow under s.
14(1) of Hindu Succession :A.ct defeasib/e by adOption 1nade afte1· the
enllc:unent,
-
A Hindu died leaving behind his widow and daughters.
The proper-
ties le{t behind by the deceased were' inherited by the widow, and they
\Vere in her possession when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into
force.
Subsequent to the enforcement of the Act, she adopted a son and
thereafter settled a part of the property on one of the daughters. The_
adopted son challenged the validity of the settlen1ent deed contehdiuj?
that the adoption must be deemed to relate back to the death of the
'vidow's husband and therefore she was incompetent to make the im-
pu~gned alienation.
Rejecting the contention1 this Court;
HELD :-The rights conferred 'on a Hindu female under s. 14(1)
of the Act are not restricted or limited IJy any rule of Hi.ndu law.
The
section plainly says that the property· possessed by a Hindu female on
the date the Act came into force \\'hether acquired before or after the
commencement of the Act· shall be held by her as full owner thereof. The
provision makes .a clear departure (rom the Hindu litw -texts or rules.
Those texts or rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain intend-
ment of the provision. [897 F-GJ
'The fiction of relation back in the case of adoption under Hindu
friw is 'based on Hindu la\v texts or rules or at any rate it is based ou
interpretation of Hil.'ldu la\\·.
Therefore. by virtue of s. 4 of the Act
that rule ceased to hh.ve effect from the date the Act came into force
'''ith respect to any n1atter for which provision is made under the Act. [896
F-Gl
'C
D
E
Yan1unabai and Ant v. Rani !11aharr.j Shreedlu1r M<1haraj anfi a11r.
F
A.T.R. 1960 Born. 463; approved.
Shrinivr.s Krislianarao Kango v. Naray'an Derji
Kongo
a11d
ors.
r1955] 1 S.C.R. p. 1; Krishna111urthi J.'nsudeorao Deshpande v. Dlrrun•araj,
[1%1] 1 S.C.R. 813, referred to.
Suk/11·n111 and anl". v. Gauri Shat;kar and anr. [1968]
1 S.C.R. 4i6
referred to.
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 139 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and Decree dated September 3.
1963 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 1021 of
1960.
G
B. Datta, for the appellant.
H
M. Srinivasall, K. N. Ba/as11brama11ian and Lily Thomas, for
respondent No. 1.
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. "AMMAL \', RAMAL!NGAM (Hegde, J.)
89 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J:legde, 1.
The question for decision in this appeal by cer-
tificate is whether the full ownership conferred on a·Hindu femak
under s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (to be ·hereinafte1
referred to as the Actl is defeasible by the adoption made by
her to. her deceased .husba!ld after the Act came into force.
The fdcts relevant for the purpose of deciding that question
of law may now lie state<l.
One Somasundra Udayar of Poon-
gavur village in Tanjavoor District di.ed orior to 1937 leaving
behind him his widow Sellathachi\and tV:.i daughters K..ippaimal
nnd Punithavalli Ammal.
The properties left behind. by !he
deceased were inherited by his widow and they were in her
possession when the Act came into force on- June 17, 1956. By
Yirtue of s. 14(1) of the Act Sellathachi became the full owner
of the properties inherited by her from her husband.. On July
13, 1956, she adopted the plaintiff-1st respondent in this
appeal.
Thereafter on June 19, 1957 she settled 9 acres l 6
cents of land and half share in a house inherited by her frotll
her husband on her daughter Punithavalli Ammal, the appellnnt
in this appeal.
The validity of this settlement deed was
challenged by means of a sui! by the adopted son ~even during
the life time of Sellathachi.
The settler who was impleaded as
the !st defendant to the action died ·soon after the .insiitution uf
the suit.
Various contentions· were raised in defence but it is
unnecessary to go into them. -The trial court dismissed the suit
on the ground that iri view of s. 14(1) Sellathachi was the full
,,._,·ner of the properties inherited by her from her husband ond
hence the adopted son cannot impugn the alienation made by
her.
This decision was upheld in appeal but in second appeal.
:t division bench of th~ High Court of Madras reversed that deci-
>ion holding that the adootion ofExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.