Sridhar vs D. Prabhakar

B.S. Patil, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, allowing R.A. No. 1145/2009 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 439/1999 and consequently decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs with costs.

Appellants were defendants 1 and 2 in the Trial Court. Respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant before the Trial Court has not joined the appellants in filing this appeal and that is why he has been arrayed as respondent No. 3.

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Plaintiffs and the defendants were the children of late K. Dasappa and Smt. Savithramma. K. Dasappa sold all his properties in favour of one Doreswamaiah, maternal grandfather of the parties on 12.12.1957. On the same day, Doreswamaiah executed a Will whereunder the suit schedule properties were bequeathed in favour of Savithramma, his daughter creating life interest in her favour with a stipulation that upon her death the properties will pass on to her male children. Savithramma, who was none other than the mother of the parties, though conferred with only life interest, executed a Will in favour of the defendants on 24.01.1980 excluding the plaintiffs. It is in this background when the plaintiffs were deprived of their rights over the suit properties and their possession was interfered with, they instituted the suit seeking declaration that the Will dated 24.01.1980 executed by Savithramma did not confer any right in favour of the defendants and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs.

Parties let in their evidence on the issues framed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the Will dated 12.12.1957 executed by late Doreswamaiah in favour of his daughter Savithramma though purported to confer only life interest, by virtue of operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, ''the Act'') the limited right conferred on Savithramma blossomed into absolute right and Savithramma became the absolute owner of the same and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred R.A. No. 1145/2009. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court holding that by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Act which is enacted as an exception to the principle contained under Section 14(1), any property acquired by Will where the terms of the Will prescribed a restricted estate in such property would not be governed by sub-section (1) of Section 14 and the female Hindu, who acquired property under such Will cannot be held to be the full owner thereof, but can be a limited owner. Thus, the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed.

I have heard Sri Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri P.B. Ajith, learned counsel appearing for Sri B.M. Shyam Prasad, counsel for respondent No. 3.

The entire controversy in this case revolves around understanding of provisions contained under Section 14 of the Act. The facts as recorded by the Courts below and as evident from documents on record clearly show that Doreswamaiah purchased the property on 12.12.1957 and became the absolute owner thereof. He executed a Will on the same day i.e., on 12.12.1957 creating life interest in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of his daughter Smt. Savithramma with a condition that upon her death, the property shall go to her male children. It is evident from the recitals of the Will as found by the lower Appellate Court that the suit properties were not bequeathed to Savithramma for her maintenance, nor by recognizing her pre-existing right over the property. In fact, the Trial Court has wrongly inferred that bequest was made in favour of Savithramma in recognition of her right of maintenance. Neither there is any recital in this regard in the Will, nor was it the case pleaded before the Trial Court by the defendants. Despite the same, the Trial Court, without referring to sub-section (2) of Section 14, recorded a finding that the properties possessed by Savithramma as daughter of Doreswamaiah had become her absolute properties and held that Savithramma had become full owner thereof and not a limited owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Act reads as under:

"14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. - (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

Explanation. - In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property."

Section 14(2) is an exception to Section 14(1) and states that nothing contained in sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall apply to any property acquired by way of Will, where the terms of the Will prescribe a restricted estate in such property. Thus, in the facts of the present case, sub-section (2) of Section 14 applies and not sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The lower Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the facts of the case and has reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court was in error in placing reliance on the judgments reported in Bhura and Others Vs. Kashiram, and 2000 (3) SCC 310 and other judgments which had no application to the facts of the present case.

In such circumstances, as the lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the facts and the law applicable, no substantial question of law falls for consideration in this case and the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed.