LexSACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. versus E. VANAJA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 240 : 2023 INSC 984 240 CASE DETAILS SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. v. E. VANAJA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018) NOVEMBER 06, 2023 [B. R. GAVAI, HIMA KOHLI AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow of the pre-deceased son has the fi rst right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 15 (1)(a) and 16 – Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus – Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu – First right of widow of the pre-deceased son to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law: Held: A combined reading of s. 15(1)(a) and s. 16 would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, fi rstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) and the husband – Thus, the plaintiff being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the fi rst right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law – No perversity in the fi ndings recorded by the High Court holding that all the suit properties are joint family properties – However, the High Court is not correct in allotting 1/16th share to the plaintiff out of the share of her mother-in-law in the suit properties – Impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is modifi ed only to the said extent. [Para 13, 10, 14] OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3667 of 2018. 241 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in SA No.76 of 2009. With Civil Appeal No.7493 of 2023 Appearances: Balaji Srinivasan, Shiva Krishnamurthi, Ms. Monisha Handa, Rajul Shrivasstav, K. Krishna Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. Delay condoned in fi ling Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823 of 2018. 2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). _____________ @ Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823 of 2018. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant no. 2 (Sachidhanandam) assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court, allowing the regular second appeal in part, preferred by the plaintiff (E. Vanaja-respondent no. 1 herein). 4. Plaintiff ’s suit for partition was allowed by the trial Court allotting her 1/8th share in the suit properties. On appeal by the defendant no. 2, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part holding that the plaintiff / respondent no. 1 is entitled to 1/16th share in suit ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties. At the same time, the First Appellate Court granted liberty to the plaintiff to work out her remedy for mesne profi ts with regard to ‘C1’ schedule property and items 25 to 30 in ‘B’ schedule properties by fi ling a separate proceeding under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. As against this, the High Court in second appeal has held that after the death of the plaintiff ’s husband, namely, Elangovan, and her mother-in-law, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share out of 1/8th and 1/16th of her mother-in-law’s share in the ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties. SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. v. E. VANAJA 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. 5. The plaintiff -respondent no. 1 is the widow and the sole heir of Elango, the third son of Nallathambi Chettiar whereas the defendants are the widow, sons and daughters and grand-sons of the said Nallathambi Chettiar. It would be appropriate to refer the genealogical tree as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint to appreciate the relations between the parties. 6. The plaintiff preferred a suit for partition claiming 1/8th share, or such shares as the Court thinks fi t, in the suit properties described in schedules ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘C1’ as also for mesne profi ts. It was the case of the plaintiff that ‘B’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties of Nallathambi Chettiar, whereas the ‘C’ schedule properties have been purchased by defendant nos. 1 to 4 from the income earned from the ‘B’ schedule properties and ‘C1’ schedule properties are also joint family properties, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in all the properties. 7. The defendants admitted the relationsh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.