1996 JTR(SC) 2031
1997 AIR(SC) 2311 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2188 ; 1997 1 CLT(SC) 215 ; 1996 Supp JT 272 ; 1996 9 Scale 244 ; 1997 9 Scale 244 ; 1997 10 SCC 673 ; 1996 SCR 332 ; 1997 KHC 1235 ; 1997 2 Supreme 656
1997(2) Supreme 656
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Bhoomireddy Chenna Reddy & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Bhoospalli Pedda Verrappa (dead) by LRs. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 566 of 1981
Decided on 28-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Adv., and G. Narisimhulu, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A. Subba Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Limited right of enjoying property during life time created in a female for her maintenance ripened into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act.
Act
Referred
:HINDU SUCCESSION ACT : S.14(1)
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.34
(A) The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1), read with the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, governs this dispute concerning a testamentary disposition and the remedy of injunction. Under the Will, the widow was bequeathed property for life with a vested remainder in the respondents, and upon the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited ownership right ripened into an absolute estate, confirming her full ownership at death. The relief sought was a perpetual injunction against the appellants who were interfering with the respondents possession of the inherited properties.
(B) A limited owner under a Will who is entitled to property for maintenance automatically becomes an absolute owner upon the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A party in continuous, unchallenged possession from the testators death, with title and mutation in their name, may be entitled to injunctive relief against subsequent trespassers. The remedy of injunction is maintainable where the appellants were in receipt of notice of the respondents title and possession, and acquiesced by purchasing parts of the property.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Pedda Chennaiah bequeathed his properties to his wife, Laxmamma, for life, with a vested remainder to the respondents, and died in 1947. Laxmamma held the properties until her death in 1965. The respondents were in continuous possession and had their names mutated. The appellants later interfered, leading the respondents to file for a perpetual injunction, which was decreed by the trial and appellate courts, and dismissed on second appeal. This appeal was filed by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents were in lawful possession from the testators death, that the properties were mutated in their names, and that the appellants had purchased portions of the properties, thereby acquiescing to the respondents title. It was held that an injunction was rightly granted against the appellants due to the documentary evidence and admitted facts demonstrating uninterrupted possession.
Issues:
Whether the widow became an absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether an injunction could be granted against the appellants in view of their status as potential owners and their conduct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The widows life interest under the Will became an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondents, in continuous possession with title and mutation from the testators death, were entitled to an injunction against the appellants who interfered and later acquired parts of the property, thus acquiescing to the respondents right.
Result:
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
(A) The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1), read with the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, governs this dispute concerning a testamentary disposition and the remedy of injunction. Under the Will, the widow was bequeathed property for life with a vested remainder in the respondents, and upon the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited ownership right ripened into an absolute estate, confirming her full ownership at death. The relief sought was a perpetual injunction against the appellants who were interfering with the respondents possession of the inherited properties.
(B) A limited owner under a Will who is entitled to property for maintenance automatically becomes an absolute owner upon the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A party in continuous, unchallenged possession from the testators death, with title and mutation in their name, may be entitled to injunctive relief against subsequent trespassers. The remedy of injunction is maintainable where the appellants were in receipt of notice of the respondents title and possession, and acquiesced by purchasing parts of the property.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Pedda Chennaiah bequeathed his properties to his wife, Laxmamma, for life, with a vested remainder to the respondents, and died in 1947. Laxmamma held the properties until her death in 1965. The respondents were in continuous possession and had their names mutated. The appellants later interfered, leading the respondents to file for a perpetual injunction, which was decreed by the trial and appellate courts, and dismissed on second appeal. This appeal was filed by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents were in lawful possession from the testators death, that the properties were mutated in their names, and that the appellants had purchased portions of the properties, thereby acquiescing to the respondents title. It was held that an injunction was rightly granted against the appellants due to the documentary evidence and admitted facts demonstrating uninterrupted possession.
Issues:
Whether the widow became an absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether an injunction could be granted against the appellants in view of their status as potential owners and their conduct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The widows life interest under the Will became an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondents, in continuous possession with title and mutation from the testators death, were entitled to an injunction against the appellants who interfered and later acquired parts of the property, thus acquiescing to the respondents right.
Result:
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
ORDER
The appellants are sons of the brother of Bhoomireddy Pedda Chennaiah. The respondents are the sons of the sister of Laxmamma, widow of Pedda Chennaiah. Pedda Chennaiah during his life time had bequeathed all his properties to his wife Laxmamma by his registered Will dated May 12, 1947 with right to enjoy the property with vested reminder in the respondents with absolute right and he died on May 25, 1947. Laxmamma held the property during her life time and she died on October 21, 1965. When the appellants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, the respondents filed O.S. No. 187/69 in the Court of District Munsif at Anantapur for a perpetual injunction. The trial Court decreed it. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the same. In the Second Appeal No. 437/77, by judgment and decree dated February 21, 1979 the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
2. Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is right in his contention that Laxmamma having for the properties under the Will executed by her husband Pedda Chennaiah, as a limited owner, after Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force she became an absolute owner as her limited right of enjoying the property during her life time for her maintenance ripened into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of that Act and that she died as a full owner of the said properties. The legal position in this behalf is settled by this Court in C. Masilamani Mudalier & Ors. v. Idol of Shri Swaminathanswami Thirukoil & Anr.1, wherein it has been held that the properties given to the wife by the husband under his Will for maintenance must be construed to have been acquired by the wife, in view of her pre-existing right to maintenance. When properties are thus bequeath for its enjoyment in life, it cannot be said to be a right acquired for the first time under the Will but it has to be considered as a reflection of the pre-existing right. After 1956, her limited right got enlarged into absolute right by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act. She will have to be treated as having become an absolute owner. However, the real question which arises for consideration is : whether an injunction could have been granted in favour of the respondents in view of the facts of this case ? It is seen that even during the life time of Laxmamma, after the demise of Pedda Chennaiah, the respondents came in possession of the property and were enjoying the same right from 1947. The properties were mutated in their name. It is also an admitted fact that in 1951, the appellants themselves had purchased some of the properties, the subject matter of the Will, from the respondents. In view of these facts, the question arises whether an injunction can be granted against the appellants ? The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have concurrently found as a fact thus :
"The lands were transferred in the name of the respondents and pattas also were granted to them and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property since the death of their testator. Voluminous evidence clearly demonstrated the fact. In view of the admission made by the appellants that the respondents were in possession of the part of the properties purchased from the respondents, it would clearly indicate that the respondents remain in possession of the property right from the date of the death of the testator. Under these circumstances, the injunction was rightly granted against the appellants."
3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy has contended that no injunction can be granted against a true owner. As a proposition of law, it is indisputable. But the question is : whether the appellants have become owners of the property ? Several imponderable things would arise until that declaration is given to them. It is seen that when the respondents have been in possession and got their names mutated in assertion of their right, right from 1947, may be it was open to them to contend that they remained in possession in assertion of their own right even to the knowledge of the appellants and the appellants had acquiesced to it. The admitted purchase of the properties from them by the appellants themselves may lend assurance to that assertion. Therefore, it would be open to them to raise that plea, had the appellants asserted their right. But it is a fact that no such issues were raised as no such plea was taken. Under these circumstances, we think that the injunction, due to the above documentary evidence and admitted facts, was rightly granted against the appellants.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******