Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati through its President vs Omprakash S/o Dinkar Deshmukh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6981 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.33756 of 2015)

SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT ... Appellant (s) Versus

OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS. ... Respondent(s)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowing a

second appeal and reversing the Judgment of the First Appellate Court,

which itself was a reversing Judgment, plaintiff No.1 in a suit for

recovery of possession and for past and future mesne profits, has come

up with the above appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 4.

1

4. The suit property is a house, which originally belonged to one Shri

Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh. The said Kashirao Sampatrao

Deshmukh died on 1.05.1977, leaving behind him surviving, his wife

Smt. Shevantabai.

5. Contending that after the death of her husband, Shevantabai gifted

the suit property to the appellant herein under a registered Gift Deed

dated 9.04.1981 and that the defendants who came into the house

under the pretext of helping Smt. Shevantabai and her husband in their

old age, slowly took complete control of the suit property and drove Smt.

Shevantabai out, the appellant herein and Smt. Shevantabai joined

together to file a civil suit in Regular C.S No.24 of 1982 in the Court of

the Civil Judge (J.D.), Akot. The suit was for recovery of possession. The

defendants in their written statement, set up a Will allegedly executed

by Shri Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh on 4.05.1976. It was the

contention of the defendants that under the said Will, Smt. Shevantabai

was granted only a life estate and that after her lifetime, the property

was to devolve upon the first defendant. The defendants claimed that

the gift deed executed by Shevantabai was null and void in view of a

limited life estate conferred upon her under the Will.

2

6. The trial Court, by a Judgment and decree dated 17.12.1986 held

(i) that the Will set up by the defendants was proved; (ii) that

Shevantabai who was plaintiff No.2 was bequeathed only a right of

enjoyment during her life time and (iii) that therefore, the Gift Deed

executed by Smt. Shevantabai in favour of the appellant herein who was

the plaintiff No.1 was not valid and binding on the defendants.

Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the claim of the appellant herein,

but granted a decree in favour of plaintiff No.2, as she was alive at that

time and admittedly she was entitled to possession and enjoyment of the

suit property during her lifetime.

7. Aggrieved by the decree of possession granted in favour of Smt.

Shevantabai (plaintiff No.2), the defendants filed a regular first appeal in

R.C.A No.408 of 1986. Aggrieved by the findings regarding the nature of

the bequest under the Will and the validity of the Gift Deed, the

appellant herein (plaintiff No.1) filed an independent first appeal in

R.C.A No.416 of 1986.

8. The Additional District Judge, Akola, by a Judgment and decree

dated 22.01.1992 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and

allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, holding that the Will set

3 up by the defendants clearly gave Shevantabai all rights of enjoyment

including the right to dispose of the same and that, therefore, she was

the full owner of the suit property entitled to gift it to the appellant

herein.

9. Though the Judgment of the First Appellate Court was a common

Judgment in two first appeals, namely, RCA Nos.408 and 416 of 1986,

the defendants filed only one second appeal in SA No.154 of 1992, on

the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The

said appeal was allowed by the High Court by a Judgment and decree

dated 14.10.2014, holding that what was granted in favour of

Shevantabai was only a life estate and that her estate could not have

enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is

against the said Judgment of the High Court that the appellant herein

who was plaintiff No.1 has come up with the above appeal.

10. Before we proceed further, we must take note of the fact that the

plaintiff No.2 Smt. Shevantabai died on 20.08.2005. Admittedly,

Shevantabai did not leave behind any legal heir to succeed. The first

defendant was also not a legal heir, but was described in the Will set up

by him, as the nephew of the testator.

4

10. Keeping the above facts in mind, let us now come to the core issue

on hand. All the three Courts proceeded on the basis that the execution

of the Will dated 4.05.1976 by Shri Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh

stood proved. It is only on the question of the nature of the bequest

made under the Will that each of the three Courts took different views.

While the trial Court took the view that under the Will, the testator’s

wife (plaintiff No.2) was given only a limited right of enjoyment for life,

the First Appellate Court held that what was bequeathed was full rights

of enjoyment, including the right to transfer. The First Appellate Court

highlighted the most important recital in the Will to the effect “as my

wife Smt. Shevantabai Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh has no other legal

heirs, after her death whatever property remains that property shall go to

my near nephew…..”. The words “after her death whatever property

remains” were clearly indicative of the fact that the bequest was not of a

life estate but was complete.

11. Interestingly, the High Court did not overturn the finding of fact

recorded by the First Appellate Court. Instead, the High Court wrongly

proceeded to analyse Sub­Sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu

Succession Act, to come to the conclusion that the limited estate did not

5 get enlarged into full ownership. The question of fact whether what was

conveyed under the Will, was only a limited right of enjoyment or full

ownership, was settled by the First Appellate Court in favour of the

plaintiffs. This finding was not held by the High Court to be perverse.

Though the High Court thought that one of the substantial questions of

law arising for consideration was whether Smt. Shevantabai was full

owner or limited owner, the High Court chose to answer this question

not on the basis of the recitals contained in the Will but on the basis of

the wrong understanding of an inapplicable Judgment of this Court in

Sadhu Singh vs. Gurudwara Sahib Narike and Ors.1 The High Court

overlooked the fact that in a civil dispute, the First Appellate Court is a

final Court of fact and law and the High Court’s interference under

Section 100 is only on a substantial question of law. Once the First

Appellate Court had found that the recitals contained in the Will clearly

conveyed full ownership, there was no occasion for the High Court to go

into Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act at all. Therefore, the

Judgment and decree of the High Court are clearly erroneous and liable

to be set aside.

12. There is also one more reason why the High Court could not have 1 (2006) 8 SCC 75

6 interfered with the Judgment of the First Appellate Court. As we have

pointed out earlier, the First Appellate Court was concerned with two

regular first appeals, one filed by the defendants and another filed by

the appellant herein who was plaintiff No.1. The First Appellate Court

dismissed R.C.A No.408 of 1986 filed by the defendants and allowed

R.C.A No.416 of 1986 filed by the appellant herein. The defendants

chose to file only one second appeal and that was against the decree in

RCA No.408 of 1986. The decree in R.C.A No.416 of 1986 has been

allowed to attain finality. Even on this ground, the High Court ought to

have dismissed the second appeal.

13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned

Judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside. The suit filed by

the appellant along with Smt. Shevantabai will stand decreed as prayed

for, as decided by the First Appellate Court in its Judgment dated

22.01.1992. There will be no order as to costs.

…..…………....................J. (Hemant Gupta)

.…..………......................J (V. Ramasubramanian) NOVEMBER 22, 2021 NEW DELHI.

7 ITEM NO.16 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33756/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-10-2014 in SA No. 154/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur)

SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT ... Petitioner (s) Versus OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS. ... Respondent(s)

Date : 22-11-2021 This matter was called on for hearing on 22.11.2021 and the signed reportable order is being uploaded today i.e. on 24.11.2021.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.

Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.

Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On 22.11.2021, this Court passed the following order:-

“Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Reasons to follow.”

The signed reportable order is being uploaded today i.e. on 24.11.2021.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

8

(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)

9 ITEM NO.16 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33756/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-10-2014 in SA No. 154/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur)

SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

OMPRAKASH & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 22-11-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Reasons to follow.

(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)

10