V. MUTHUSAMI (DEAD) BY LRS versus ANGAMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 26-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V. MUTHUSAMI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
ANGAMMAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
·B 
Hindu Law: 
"' 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
c 
Section 14(/)-Female Hindu-Property-Possession of-Pre-existing 
right oj maintenance-Whetherfull or limited ownership-Held: Jf a female 
Hindu comes into possession of the property by virtue of her pre-existing right 
of maintenance she becomes full owner of the property-Hence, she has power 
to execute an agreement for sale in respect of the said property. 
D 
... 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
_, 
Section 20-Specific perfor111ance-Jurisdiction to decree-Held: Grant 
.. 
. 
' 
of decree for specific performance is a discretionary one-If decree/or specific 
relief involves hardship on the defendant and no hardship to the plaintiff, then E 
plaintiff can be compensa1ed by a decree of compensation. 
The father-in-law of respondent-defendant No. 1 executed a deed of 
settlement, which stipulated payment of a certain sum per month to 
-'-. 
respondent-defendant No. I with a' charge over the suit land of the father-in-
law. 'Subsequently, by another settlement deed only limited interest was F 
created in favour of respondent-defendant No. I and during her lifetime she 
waS'given the right to enjoy the income from the properties (suit land) without 
any power of alienation and after her lifetime the properties would revert 
back to the'settlers. 
_, 
Respondent-defendant No. 2 claiming himself to be the absolute owner G 
~ 
of the suit land, executed an agreement for sale in respect of the suit land in 
favour of respondent defendants Nos. 3 to 6 (purchasers). Subsequently, a 
sale agreement for the suit land was entered into between the appellant-
plaintiff and respondent-defendants Nos. I and 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed 
a suit for specific performance of this agreement for sale. T~e trial court H 
37 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A dismissed the suit on the ground of want of title in respondent-defendant 
No. I. 
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that respondent-
defendant No. 1 was not the full owner of the suit land; that the right for 
maintenance of respondent-defendant No. 1 sprang from the settlement deed 
B and not under the old 'Hindu Law'; that respondent-defendant No. 1 had no 
pre-existing right of maintenance under the Hindu Law; and, therefore, she 
was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession 
Act, 1956. Hence this appeal. · 
c 
The following questions of law arose before this Court: 
(1) Whether respondent-defendant No. 1 had any pre-existing right of 
maintenance pursuant to which she came into possession of the suit land? 
(2) Whether respondent-defendant No. 1 was entitled to the benefit 
D under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The husband of respondent-defendant No. 1 had a personal 
obligation to maintain her. The respondent-defendant No. 1, after the death 
E of her husband, could enforce her tangible right of maintenance over the estate 
left behind by her husband. (45-C] 
1.2. The respondent-defendant No. 1 is claiming maintenance as of right 
against the property i.e. }us-ad-rem left behind by her husband as property 
F includes both movable and immovable. The right of maintenance could be 
enforced by the respondent-defendant No. 1 against the estate of her husband 
in the hands of her father-in-law. Though respondent-defendant No. 1 was 
not in actual physical. possession of the land, she was in legal possession as 
she never parted with the right of her maintenance and she could enforce 
such a right in law. [45-E] 
G 
V. Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy, [1977] 3 SCC 99, relied on. 
2. Respondent-defendant No. 1 did not come for the first time into 
possession of the suit property and her right of maintenance was continued 
by the settlement deed and also her pre-existing right of maintenance was 
H recognised by this deed. Therefore, possession of respondent-defendant 
.,, .• 
... 
V. MUTHUSAMI v. ANGAMMAL [ PHUKAN, J.] 
39 
No. 1 was not by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A 
As the respondent-defendant No. 1 has come into possession of the suit land 
by virtue of pre-existing right of maintenance out of the estate of her late 
husband, the present case in covered by Section 14(1) of the Act and, therefore, 
after coming into force of the Act she became full owner over the sui

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