Gangamma Etc vs G. Nagarathnamma & Ors. Etc

2. The subject matter of challenge before this

Court is the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006

passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004

and in the cross objection 47/2006 filed under order 41,

rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04

1 passed in Original Suit No.6169/92 by the XX Additional

City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed

by i) Smt. Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and

ii) by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing

of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff was the only child of the

plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and natural guardian

and she represented the plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs

are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court.

4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd

share in suit properties and also claiming separate

possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and

other incidental reliefs.

5. The first defendant in the suit is the mother-

in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants 2, 3 & 4

are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.5 is the son of the defendant No.1. Defendants 6 to

14 are tenants in the suit properties.

2

6. The plaint case is Sri. Ganganna, the father-in-

law of the plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind

his wife, three daughters and two sons. The genological

table of the family is as under:-

Ganganna (Died in 1973) ! Gangamma (Pet. 1) ____________________________________________________ ! ! ! ! ! Srinivas Yashoda Padma Manju Kumar S. Moorthy (son)(Died (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Son) in 1984) (D-2) (R-3) (D-3)(P-2) (D-4 (P-3) D-5 (P-4) ! Nagarathna (wife) (Plf. No.1) (R-1) ! Hemalatha (daughter) (Plf. No.2) (R-2)

7. The suit properties consist of both agricultural

lands and urban properties and the plaint case is they

are ancestral properties belonging to the joint family.

The further plaint case is though some of the properties

stand in the name of first defendant, they were bought

benami in her name by the late Ganganna out of the income

from agricultural lands and the income of the first

plaintiff's husband who was working as an accountant in a

private firm and drawing salary. He also had a leather

3 business and had earning from running a taxi. Thus he

was contributing seven to eight thousand every month to

the family and out of such income the suit properties

were purchased. The first defendant being a housewife

had no income to purchase properties. However, latter on

relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband

and defendant No.1 became strained and the plaintiff No.1

and her husband had to leave the ancestral house. The

plaint case is that out of the properties those at item

Nos. 1 to 4 are the joint family properties.

8. In the written statement filed by the first

defendant, the plaint case was denied excepting the

relationship between the parties. The other defendants

adopted the stand of the first defendant.

9. The Trial Court however decreed the suit for

partition in part and held that the plaintiffs are

entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule property and to

separate possession by metes and bounds. They are also

4 entitled to an enquiry into mesne profits under order 20,

rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.

10. Challenging the said judgment, the present

appellants filed a Regular First Appeal being RFA

617/2004 and the plaintiff - respondent filed a cross

objection, as mentioned above.

11. In the First Appeal the High Court found that no

evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that she

had any independent sources of income. It has also come

in evidence that at the time of death of the husband of

the appellant only G. Srinivasan was 16 years old and the

other children of the appellant herein were minors and

they had no income.

12. The High Court found that evidence was adduced

to show that the husband of the plaintiff had substantial

income and he owned an ambassador car. In view of this

evidence, High Court held that properties at items 1 & 2

are joint family properties.

5

13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

that without any evidence the High Court came to a

finding that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 had

substantial income. From the list of the documentary

evidence produced before the Trial Court nothing appears

on record to indicate that there was any document

evidencing the income of the husband of the plaintiff

No.1. Therefore the High Court fell into an error by

holding that though the properties at item Nos.1 & 2 are

recorded in the name of the appellants, they are joint

family properties.

14. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the

issue. As the properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded

in the name of the appellant, in the absence of any

evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by

operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full

owner of those properties. In the facts of this case

discussed above it has to be accepted that those

6 properties are not joint properties but the appellant is

the sole owner of those properties.

15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the

said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive

manner since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri

Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu.

In Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others - AIR 1966 SC 1879,

Justice Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that

Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a female

Hindu, who in the absence of the said provision would

have been a limited owner of the property, will now

become full owner by virtue of the said section. Such

female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make

the estate heritable by their own heirs and not

revertible to the heirs of the last male holder.

16. Again in the case of Punithavalli Ammal Vs.

Minor Ramalingam and another - AIR 1970 SC 1730, a three-

Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the position that

the said Act has overriding effect and confers full

ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that

7 rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female

are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra) the

said section makes a clear departure from all texts of

Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be

used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1)

of the said Act.

17. In Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi - AIR 1970

SC 1963, the learned Judges held that the word 'acquired'

in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to

be given the widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7).

18. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others Vs.

Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. - AIR 1977 SC

1944, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court held that

sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its

amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of

property by a female Hindu. Regardless of whether such

property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of

commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or

possessed, she would be the full owner of the property. 8

19. In view of such consistent views taken by this

Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that

Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of

the properties which stand in the name of the appellant

and the appellant would be the full owner of those

properties.

20. Therefore the order of the High Court cannot be

upheld and is set aside. The order of the Learned Trial

Judge is affirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent

indicated above. There is no order as to costs.

..................J. (S.B. SINHA)

..................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) July 06, 2009

9