1977 (10) TMI 119 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of "a male Hindu dying intestate" under Section 8.
3. The effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the widow's inherited property.
4. The legal status of reversionary heirs.
5. The impact of prior judicial decisions on the current case.
6. The admissibility and reliability of public registers as evidence.
7. The effect of the Hindu Succession Act on reversionary succession.
8. The amendment of pleadings in light of new evidence.
9. The interpretation of Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
10. The applicability of res judicata.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The primary issue was whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to a case where the husband died intestate before the Act came into force, and his widow inherited his properties but was not in possession of those properties and died after the commencement of the Act. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur, which affirmed that Section 8 is applicable in such scenarios.

2. Interpretation of "a male Hindu dying intestate" under Section 8:
The court examined whether the phrase "a male Hindu dying intestate" refers only to the status of the person at the time of death. The Privy Council had previously interpreted similar language to mean that the status of the person dying intestate is relevant, not the time of death. Therefore, Section 8 would apply to the husband's death before the Act.

3. The effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the widow's inherited property:
Section 14 of the Act transforms any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, into her full ownership. The court discussed whether this provision would affect the scope of Section 8, especially when the widow was not in possession of the property.

4. The legal status of reversionary heirs:
The court addressed whether the reversionary heirs should be determined as of the widow's death date, implying that the husband's death date should be presumed to be the same. This presumption was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur.

5. The impact of prior judicial decisions on the current case:
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur had resolved the conflict of opinions among various High Courts. The Supreme Court's interpretation was binding, and the court followed it to answer the question in the affirmative.

6. The admissibility and reliability of public registers as evidence:
The court scrutinized the evidence provided by the defendants, particularly the public register (Ex. B-62), which was challenged for its genuineness. The trial and appellate courts had not adequately examined the discrepancies in the register, leading to a lack of legal adjudication on this issue. The court concluded that the register was unreliable.

7. The effect of the Hindu Succession Act on reversionary succession:
The Full Bench of the court held that succession to Peria Ramana Gounder's estate should be determined under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, following the death of his widow, Sengammal, in 1958. This decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur.

8. The amendment of pleadings in light of new evidence:
The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to introduce new facts regarding the extinguishment of title under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court denied the amendment, stating that it introduced a new cause of action and lacked bona fides.

9. The interpretation of Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act:
The court clarified that the enumeration of heirs in Class II of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act should not be interpreted to mean that all such heirs take cumulatively. Instead, the heirs in each item exclude those in the subsequent items. Therefore, Kaliammal, as the sister of Peria Ramana Gounder, was the nearest heir and inherited the property as a full owner under Sections 14 to 18 of the Act.

10. The applicability of res judicata:
The court considered whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior decision (Ex. B-25 and Ex. B-26) that upheld the will of Chinna Nanjappan, which bequeathed the suit properties to the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 2 and 3. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit, and the prior decision was binding on them.

Conclusion:
The second appeal was allowed, and the court emphasized the need to conclude the long-drawn litigation without awarding costs. The court's decision was guided by the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur and the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regarding reversionary succession and the status of heirs.