THIMMAIAH AND ORS. versus NINGAMMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 25-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THIMMAIAH AND ORS. 
v. 
NINGAMMA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 25, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Succession-Devolution of coparcenery property-Son fil-
ing suit for partition of estate of deceased father ( Karta) comprising ancestral 
and coparcenery properties--Wife and unmarried daughter of Karta resisting 
suit claiming deceased Karta had gifted items of ancestral property to wife and 
se(f-acquired properties to unmarried daughter by separate gift deeds, the 
latter with consent of son-Trial court and appellate court finding lack of 
consent and furtha that coparcenery prooerties could not have been given to 
daughter by way of gift-High Court negativing claim of wife but holding that 
gift to unmarried daughter was validly made with consent of son-High Court 
not coming to conclusion that gift to unmarried daughter was either within 
reasonable limits or in fulfilment of any recognised pious purpose-Held, on 
facts, gift of coparcenery property to unmarried daughter was legally imper-
missible. 
Unmarried daughter of deceased Karta claiming gift of coparcenery 
properties to her with consent of coparcener son-Other coparceners not 
consenting to gift-Held, in the circumstances, the gift to the daughter was 
invalid-Hindu Law-Succession. 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, ss.6 proviso, Explanation I-Mysore Hindu 
Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, ss.8( J)(a), (d) and 8(2)(c)(Mysore Act)-High 
Court holding unmarried daughter entitled to I/9th share in Mitakshara 
coparcenery property-Whether Mysore Act applied-Held, no, since interest 
of deceased coparcener could not pass by survivorship and Mysore Act was 
superseded by s.6 of the 1956 Act; ho!;Yever, unmarried daughter would get 11 
4th share of her brother in terms of s.8(2)(c) of the Mysore Act in addition to 
her share under s.6 of the 1956 Act as heir of male dying intestate. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s.100-Scope of interference by High 
Court in Second Appeal on questions off act-Held, High Court not entitled to 
reassess evidence and arrive at a different conclusion-Practice and Proce-
dure. 
653 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Soon after H's death his son T filed a suit for partition by metes and 
B 
c 
D 
bounds of 12 properties described in the Schedule to the plaint and for 
separate possession of 7 /12th share in such properties. The case in the 
plaint was that items I and 2 of the schedule properties were ancestral and 
all the remaining properties belonged to the coparcenery. The further case 
in the plaint was that H had illegally sought to gift away items I and 2 a 
deed dated 17.11.1967 to his surviving second wife N and items 3 to 6 by 
deed dated 9.6.1971 to his unmarried daughter D through N. T claimed 
that the gifts were void. 
T's siblings who were named as defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the suit 
supported T and claimed I/4th share in all the 12 properties. N and D 
conceded that items I and 2 were ancestral properties but claimed that 
items 3 to 6 were the self-acquired properties of H. They claimed that both 
the deeds were settlement deeds. The first made provision for the mainte-
nance of N out of items 1 and 2 and after her death, the properties were to 
revert to H. By the second deed, items 3 to 6 had been settled on D with the 
consent of T who had apart from putting a left thumb impression had also 
signed the document. 
The trial court found the gifts to be void not only because of lack of 
consent but also because H was incompetent to gift items 3 to 6 to D. The 
E 
gift of coparcenery property had not been made to D for any pious 
purpose. The first appellate court concurred with the finding and conclu-
sion of the trial court. 
In a second appeal by N and D, the High Court held that D was 
entitled to l/9th share in the coparcenery property under s.8 of the Mysore 
F 
Hindu Law Women's Rights Act 1933 (Mysore Act) but negatived the 
claim of N not only under the Mysore Act but also under the deed dated 
17.11.1967. Further the High Court held that items 3 to 6 having been 
gifted to D with the consent of T was valid and, therefore, not available for 
partition. T appealed to this Court. 
G 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
Held : I.I. H could not have donated items of coparcenery property 
to D and the deed of gift dated 9.6,1971 was impermissible under Hindu 
Law. The High Court had not come to any conclusion as to whether gift of 
H 
coparcenery items by H to D was within r

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