9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2116 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for possession of the subject land - possession of property but devise referred to under explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 not existing - pre-existing right over the subject property of a widow - HELD THAT - In Eramma v. Veerupana and Ors. 1965 (11) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT , the widow was in possession of the half of the property of her late husband and claimed her absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, 1956 which was negated by this Court for the reason that the widow was not holding possession over the subject property in question under any of the devise indicated in the explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. Wherein V. Tulasamma and Ors. v. Sesha Reddy(Dead) by LRs 1977 (3) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT , it was an admitted case before the Court that the suit property came in possession of the widow under a compromise in execution of decree of the Court, restricting her right of alienation in recognition of right to maintenance, having pre-existing right over the subject property in question on the date the Act, 1956 came into force(i.e. 17th June, 1956). In that reference, the claim was considered by this Court and held that the pre-existing right of the widow on the date of the commencement of the Act, 1956 will get her the absolute rights over the subject property. In the instant case, the Appellant although was holding possession but not under any of the devise referred to under explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 and mere possession would not confer pre-existing right of possession over the subject property to claim full ownership rights after the Act, 1956 came into force by operation of law and this what was considered and negated by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the gift of the suit property to Smt. Banti. 2. Effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the ownership of the suit property. 3. Validity and effect of the wills dated 5th January 1973 and 21st February 1973. 4. Reversionary rights of the plaintiffs. 5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Gift to Smt. Banti: The plaintiffs claimed that Bhana gifted the suit land to Smt. Banti in 1950 for her maintenance, which was challenged by Darshan Singh in Civil Suit No. 103/1953. The trial court decreed that the gift would not affect Darshan Singh's reversionary rights and would operate only during Bhana's lifetime. This decree was upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. 2. Effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The trial court initially held that Smt. Banti became the absolute owner of the suit property after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, stating that Banti's title was only valid during Bhana's lifetime. The High Court upheld this view, confirming that Banti could not be an absolute owner under the Act, 1956, as her possession was not under any of the devises mentioned in Section 14(1). 3. Validity and Effect of the Wills: The plaintiffs relied on a will dated 5th January 1973, which bequeathed Bhana's estate to them, excluding Smt. Banti and Smt. Ajit Kaur. The trial court found both the plaintiffs' will and the defendants' will dated 21st February 1973 to be executed by Bhana. However, the appellate court and the High Court upheld the validity of the will dated 5th January 1973, dismissing the later will as not duly proved. 4. Reversionary Rights of the Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs' reversionary rights were upheld by the trial court in 1954, and this decree was not affected by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to the property based on the will dated 5th January 1973 and the reversionary rights decree. 5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The appellant argued that Smt. Banti became the absolute owner of the property under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. However, the courts held that mere possession did not confer absolute ownership unless it was under a valid claim, right, or title. The Supreme Court cited Eramma v. Veerupana and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy to support this view, concluding that Banti's possession did not meet the criteria under Section 14(1). Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to the property based on the will dated 5th January 1973 and the reversionary rights decree. The court clarified that mere possession without a valid claim under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not confer absolute ownership.
|
