THOTA SESHARATHAMMA AND ANR. versus THOTA MANIKYAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 23-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THOTA SESHARATHAMMA AND ANR. 
v. 
A 
THOTA MANIKYAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 14( 1), (2)-App/ication 
and object of-Whether life estate of a widow under a will becomes 
absolute estate. 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 14( 1), (2)-Construction-
Whether retrospective-Acquisition of property by female Hindu-
C 
Methods-Widow's estate-L,0u1te's entitlement-Whether restrictive 
cu1·en1111t stands as impedin1ent to section 14( /). 
Will-Widow ·s estate-Resttictions--'-Right to maintenance-Pre-
e.u;//ng right over the property-"Res ad rem'-Obliteration of testa-
D 
111entar.J· succession with restrictive conditions w.e.f. 17.6.1956 by 
i11!1llll Siiccesswn Act, 1956--Ejjecl of 
C.A. 630 of 1981. 
Plaintiff's case was that as the defendant and her husband had no E 
issue they brought up the plaintiff as their foster son from the age of 
eight years and thereafter the plaintiff continued to live with them and 
was brought up treating him as their own son. 
Defendant's husband died on 14.1.1932 and before his death he 
executed a will beq\)eathing the suit properties in favour of his wife, for F 
her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff. 
Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but 
after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed 
hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit pro-
perty as her absolute property. 
G 
· The plaintiff claimed absolute right in the suit properties after the 
lifetime of the defendant and challenged the right of the defendant to 
execute any will in respect of the suit properties. 
The defem•e 1t look the plea that her husband died issueless and H 
717 
A 
B 
c 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
intestate and did not .execnte any will at any time. Neither she nor her 
hnsband brought up the plaintiff as their foster son nor did they educate 
him. The defendant had brought up her nephew from his childhood and 
performed his marriage. On account of love and affection for him and 
his children, the defendant executed a registered will on 26.10.69 
bequeathing all her properties in his favour. 
The Trial Court held the will dated 14.1.1932 proved and decreed 
the plaintiff's suit. 
The First Appellate Court upheld the Judgment and decree of 
theTrial Court. 
The defendant preferred a second appeal in the High Court. Dur-. 
ing the pendeocy of the Second Appeal in the High Court the plaintiff 
died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High 
Court allowed the second appeal. 
D 
The legal representatives of the plaintiff came to this Coor! by 
grant of Special Leave. 
S.L.P. (C) No. 438/ 1979. 
Married life between '0' and his wife, 'M' was not happy and 
E 
cordial. '0' executed a registered will dated 21.3.1921 bequeathing all 
his properties including the suit properties in favour of his mother and 
sister for their li.fetime and thereafter in favour of 'R' and 'D' -two sons 
of his sister and their issues. In the said will reference was made regard-
ing the conduct of 'M' in deserting him and in any event if she changed 
her mind and agreed to live under the protection of the legatees she was 
p 
allowed to enjoy the income from item I of the suit properties and that 
she should construct a house in item referred to in the will and to .live 
there during her lifetime and after her death the said Item I and the 
house site with the ho.use shall go to his sister's sons. 
'0' died in 1922 and thereafter the legatees under the will entered 
G 
into possession of all the properties. 'M' put obstruction to the legatee~ 
in getting possession. 
'M' filed a suit in 1923 praying for a declaration that the will made 
by her husband was not valid and as such be cancelled and for possession 
and mesne profits and in the alternative she claimed for maintenance 
H 
both past and future. 
·~. 
.·~. 
l. 
SESHARATHAMMA v. MANIKYAMMA 
719 
In the said suit the parties entered into a compromise and a com-
promise decree was passed on 5.3.1924. 
A 
U oder the terms of the said compromise the execution of the will 
was accepted and the same was made subject to the terms of the com-· 
promise decree. Under the compromise decree it was agreed that ;M' 
would enjoy items l & 2 of the properties mentioned in the will and also 
B 
SO cents of land during her lifetime. She would also have an enjoyment 
of the house si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.