SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT versus OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1117 · Decided: 22-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY,
AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
v.
OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6981 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Wills – Bequest made under the Will – Nature of – Testator
executed Will (in respect of property) in favour of his wife (plaintiff
no.1) who in turn gifted the property in question to appellant
(plaintiff no. 2) – Contention of defendants that the gift deed executed
by plaintiff no.1 was null and void in view of a limited life estate
conferred upon her under the Will – Held: While the trial Court
took the view that under the Will, the testator’s wife was given only
a limited right of enjoyment for life, the First Appellate Court held
that what was bequeathed was full rights of enjoyment, including
the right to transfer – High Court did not overturn the finding of
fact recorded by the First Appellate Court – Instead, the High Court
wrongly proceeded to analyse sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.14 of
the Hindu Succession Act, to come to the conclusion that the limited
estate did not get enlarged into full ownership – The question of
fact whether what was conveyed under the Will, was only a limited
right of enjoyment or full ownership, was settled by the First
Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs – This finding was not
held by the High Court to be perverse – Though the High Court
thought that one of the substantial questions of law arising for
consideration was whether testator’s wife was full owner or limited
owner, the High Court chose to answer this question not on the
basis of the recitals contained in the Will but on the basis of the
wrong understanding of an inapplicable Judgment of this Court –
High Court overlooked the fact that in a civil dispute, the First
Appellate Court is a final Court of fact and law and the High Court’s
interference u/s.100 is only on a substantial question of law – Once
the First Appellate Court had found that the recitals contained in
the Will clearly conveyed full ownership, there was no occasion for
the High Court to go into s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act at all –
Further, the First Appellate Court was concerned with two regular
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1117
1117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
first appeals, one filed by the defendants (R.C.A No. 408 of 1986)
and another filed by the appellant / plaintiff no.1 (R.C.A No. 416 of
1986) – First Appellate Court dismissed R.C.A No.408 of 1986 and
allowed R.C.A No. 416 of 1986 – The defendants chose to file only
one second appeal and that was against the decree in RCA No. 408
of 1986 – Decree in R.C.A No. 416 of 1986 was allowed to attain
finality – Even on this ground, the High Court ought to have
dismissed the second appeal – Judgment of High Court set aside –
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
– s.108.
Sadhu Singh v. Gurudwara Sahib Narike and Ors.
(2006) 8 SCC 75 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 799 – held
inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 799
held inapplicable
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6981
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No.154 of
1992.
Satyajit A. Desai, Gaurav Chaudhary, Siddharth Gautam,
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowing a
second appeal and reversing the Judgment of the First Appellate Court,
which itself was a reversing Judgment, plaintiff No. 1 in a suit for recovery
of possession and for past and future mesne profits, has come up with
the above appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
3. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 1 and 4.
4. The suit property is a house, which originally belonged to one
Shri Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh. The said Kashirao Sampatrao
Deshmukh died on 1.05.1977, leaving behind him surviving, his wife Smt.
Shevantabai.
5. Contending that after the death of her husband, Shevantabai
gifted the suit property to the appellant herein under a registered Gift
Deed dated 9.04.1981 and that the defendants who came into the house
under

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