LexSRI RAMAKRISHNA MUTT REP. BY MANAGER versus M. MAHESWARAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1157 SRI RAMAKRISHNA MUTT REP. BY MANAGER v. M. MAHESWARAN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8864 of 2010) OCTOBER 8, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.14(1) - Applicability of - On facts, creation of life interest over suit property in favour A B of wife - She remaining in possession of the suit property and C enjoying right over the said property by collecting rents since 4.3.1939 - By virtue of s.14(1), her right of life interest would ripen into full ownership. Deeds and documents: Party relying upon the deeds - 0 Held: Cannot travel away from those deeds. · During the period 1938 to 1943, one 'KP' executed the settlement deeds creating life interest in favour of his second wife over the suit property. The settlement deeds provided that after the demise of his second wife, the E property would go in favour of appellant-Mutt. 'KP' died on 31.12.1956 and his second wife died issueless on 18.3.1989. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for claiming the property on the ground that after the death of second wife of 'KP', the property should F have reverted to the appellant-Mutt in terms of the settlement deeds. The suit was contested by the respondents including the children from the first wife of 'KP' and the tenants on the ground that the second wife of 'KP' became the full owner of the property on account G of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. All the three courts below held that the second wife of 'KP' had become absolute owner of t_he property under Section 14(1) of the Act as she was in possession of the 1157 H 1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A said property on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The instant appeal was filed challenging the orders of the lower courts. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appellant/plaintiff relied upon the settlement deeds. It, therefore, cannot travel away from those settlement deeds. In terms of the deeds, the second wife of 'KP' was given the possession of suit property and was also given the right to enjoy the said property C by collecting rents of the same, right from 4.3.1939 even during the lifetime of her husband who was only managing the properties on her behalf. Thus, 'those documents proved her possession right from 4.3.1939 and, therefore, the subsequent death of her husband on D 31.12.1956 was of no consequence. Thus, she was in possession of the property in pursuance of her pre- existing right of maintenance on 17 .6.1956, the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into force. Even the constructive possession is sufficient for the E application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, her right of life interest would ripen into the full ownership. [Paras 10, 12, 13] [1164-C-E] Gumma/apura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra F Veeravva AIR 1959 SC 577; Dindayal v. Rajaram 1970 (1) SCC 786; V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. 1977 (3) sec 99 - relied on. G H Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors. 2006 (8) sec 75 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2006 (8) sec 75 1911 (3) sec 99 referred to relied on Para 6 Para 7 SRI RAMAKRISHNA MUTT REP. BY MANAGER v. 1159 M. MAHESWARAN AND ORS. AIR 1959 SC 577 1910 (1) sec 786 relied on relied on Para 12 A Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8864 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.02.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 962 of 2004. A.K. Sanghi, K.K. Mani, S. Uday Kumar, Abhishek Krishna for the Appellant. V. Giri, V.G. Pragasam, S. Elambharathi, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, L.A.J. Selvam, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Dayan Krishnan, Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Narayan, N.A. Menon. Law Associates for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. B c D 2. A unanimous verdict of the three Courts below dismissing the suit filed by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt (appellant E herein) is in challenge in this appeal. 3. The conspectus of the facts would be necessary before we approach further. One Kannabiran Pillai had two wives. The name of his second wife was Kumudammal with whom he had got married before the advent of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such, she was a legitimate wife. She had no children. The respondents herein are the children, or as the case may be, F the legal heirs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.