LexVANKAMAMIDL VENKATA SUBBA RAO versus CHATLAPALLI SEETHARAMARATNA RANGANAYAKAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
VANKAMAMIDl VENKATA SUBBA RAO
v.
CHATLAPALLISEETHARAMARATNA
RANGANA YAKAMMA
APRIL 2, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, .JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 :
C
Section 14-Applicability of-V executed a will in favour of wife R and
gift deed in favour of daughter C-V died leaving behind his widow, minor
son and daughte1~Suit for pmtition filed by widow--<:ompromise decree
passed in suit-Decree passed before coming into force of the Succession
Act-Subsequent to the coming into force of Succession Act the appellant-son
executed a gift deed jointly with his mother inf avour of a third party-In this
D deed widow acknowledged that she had a limited life interest in the propelties
under the Compromise Decree-After abolition of Estates the husband of
respondent-daughter filed claim for Ryotwmi Patta-Negativing the claim of
appellant-son the Settlement Officer granted Patta in favour of the husband
of respondcnt-daughter-171e appellate Autholity set aside the order of Settle-
E ment Officer and granted Patt a in favour of appellant-son and his
mothe1~Appellant's mother executed a will in favour of respon-
dent-Daughter bequeathing prope1ty obtained under compromise-Suit filed
by respondent-daughter for possession of prope1ties under Will dismissed by
Tlial Cowt--{)11 appeal suit decreed by High Cowt-Appeal before Supreme
Cowt-Held if the light by a Hindu woman under any instnunent is in
F recognition of pre-existing right, the limited light though presclibed under the
instmment, gets enlarged into an absolute 1ight by operation of Section 14 (1)
of the .Act--{)n the other hand, if a 1ight is acquired for the first time under
the document, then sub-section (2) of Section 14 gets attracted and, therefore,
the right acquired under the instnunent by operation of sub-section (2) of
G Section 14 does not get enlarged.-Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act
and not sub-section ( 1) of Section 14 stands attracted.
C. Masilamani Mudaliar & Ors. v. Idol of S1i Swaminathaswami
171imkoil & Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 525, referred to.
-
H
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 9.
530
V ANKAMAMIDI VENKATA SUBBA RAO v. C.S. RANGANAYAKAMMA 531
Civil Cowt-Jurisdiction of-When stands excluded-Andhra Pradesh A
(Andhra Areas) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwmi) Act,
1948-Grant of Patta by Settlement Office,......Held Act extinguishes the pre-ex-
isting right, creates new 1ights and requires T1ibunals to enquire into the rival
claims and a fom! of appeal has been provided against the order of the
primmy authority-171ereby the 1ight-and remedy made conclusive under the B
Act are given finality by the orders passed under the Act-171ereby, by neces-
sary implication, the jwisdiction of the Civil Cowt stands excluded.
Vattiche1ukwi Village Panchayat v. Noli Venkatarama Deekshithulu &
Ors., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 288, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 711 of C
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.85 of tl{e Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A. No. 543 of 1977.
C. Sitramiah, G. Prabhakar and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellant.
A. Subba Rao and K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
E
This appeal by special leave arises frr .1 the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, made on 20.3.1985 in Appeal
No. 543 of 1977.
The admitted facts are that one V. Satyanarayana had executed a will
dated December 1, 1950 bequeathing 2.66 acres of wet land in favour of F
his wife Smt. Raghavamma and also another gift deed bequeathing lands
in favour of his daughter Smt.
Seethramratna Ranganayakamma, the
respondent herein. He died on December 2, 1950 leaving behind him his
widow Raghavamma, his minor son, the appellant herein and his daughter
the respondent. Subsequently, his widow Raghavamma filed OS No. 182/53
in the Sub-Court, Tanali for partition of all the properties into equal shares G
between herself and the appellant. Therein a compromise was effected and
a decree in terms thereof under Ex. A-11 was passed on July 13, 1955.
Under the compromise decree, the property bequeathed in favour of the
respondent, Ranganayakamma was affirmed. The properties sold by the
appellant to the third party also was affirmed. The balance property was H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A . partitioned in equal shares of 6.5 acres with a right of reversion to the
appellant on the demise of Raghavam~Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.