SMT. JAYAMMA AND ANR. versus SMT. THIMMAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 01-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. JAYAMMA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SMT. THIMMAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937: 
Section 8(d}-E11titleme11t of share in joint family property-Property 
passing to sole surviving coparcene1~Appellants are daughter of sole surviving C 
coparcener-Held : appellallts are entitled to a share in the coparcener 
property. 
The respondents are the daughters of D who died leaving behind the 
appellants who are the daughters of his predeceased son C. The respon-
dents filed a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to the exclusive D 
possession of the coparcenery property left behind by D. The appellants 
. had contended before the Trial Court that they being the heirs of C were 
also entitled to ~alf share in the coparcenery property left behind by D. 
The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the High Court 
reversed the Trial Court's Judgment holding that the appellants had not E 
proved as to when C died and that D being the sole olurviving coparcener, · 
became the absolute owner and thereby he was entitled to bequeath the 
entire property in favour of the respondents. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. It is seen that in the plaint the respondents had admitted 
that C died 33 years prior to the suit. The suit was filed in 1972. Thus, the 
death of C, the father of the appellants occurred in 1938 or 1939 by which 
time the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 had come into force. 
[707-AJ G 
1.2. Section S(d) of the Act envisages that where joint family property 
passes to a single coparcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the 
right to the share of the classes of females enumerated in the sub-sections. 
Classes of females consist of widows and the daughters of the pre-deceased 
son of the sole surviving coparcener. Consequently, the appellants became H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
entitled to the share in the coparcenery property. Since C and the father of 
the respondents being the only coparceners they are entitled to e11ual share 
in the property. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to half share in the 
plaint schedule property. [707-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10212 of 
B 1995. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.89 of the Karnataka High 
Court in RS.A. No. 34 of 1979. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted 
Though notices were served on both the respondents as early as in 
March 1991, till date none has appeared in person or though counsel. . 
Notices served on them are sufficient. The respondents .are daughters of 
one Doddahanumegowda. Doddahanumegowda died on May 21, 1972 
leaving behind him Chikhanumegowda, Ningamma (first defendant), 
Mariyamma (Plainti![ No. 2), Javaramma (defendant No. 2), and Boramma 
(defendant No.3) both through their predeceased son Chikhanumegowda. 
On his demise Mariyamma and Thimmama, the daughters of Dod-
dahanumegowda filed the suit for a declaration that they became owners 
pursuant to a settlement deed dated 23.5.1970 and succeeded to the entire 
properly. Therefore, they were entitled to the exclusive possession of the 
plaintiffs property. Thereon, the appellants and their mother had con· 
tended that they being the heirs of predeceased son Chikhanumegowda, 
they are also entitled to half share in the coparcenery property left by 
Doddahanumegowda. The Trial Court dismissed O.S. No. 216/72 by its 
Judgment and decree dated .Tune 20, 1977. But on appeal, the appellate 
G Court reversed the decree holding that the appellants had not proved as 
to when Chikhanumegowda died a"nd that Doddahanumegowda being the 
sole surviving coparcener, he became the absolute owner and thereby he 
was entitled to bequeath the property in favour of his daughter, which was 
upheld by the High Court in S.A. No. 34/79 by judgment and decree dated 
H January 24, 1989. 
JAYAMMAv. THIMMAMMA 
707 
It is seen that in the plaint the respondents had admitted that A 
Chikhanumegowda died 33 years prior to the suit. Suit w;i.' filed in 1972. 
Thus, the death of Chikhanumegowda, the father of the appellants, admit-
tedly occurred in 1938 or 1939 by which time the Hindu Law Women's 
Rights Act, 1933 had come into force. Section 8( d) of the. Act envisages 
that where joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivor-
B 
ship

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