T.S. Rangachari vs V.S. Krishnaswamy and 5 others <BR>V.S. Krishnaswamy and 5 others Vs T.S. Rangachari and 20 others

Lakshmanan, J.—The plaintiff in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 (Formerly O.S.17 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Chengalpat) are the defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983. T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 was filed by the executor in respect of the Will of the deceased Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal, dated 19.11.1971 said to have been executed at Madras and registered on 19.11.1971 at Madras. Veeravalli Pattammal died on 11.1.1982. The following genealogy will be useful for the purpose of appreciating the evidence and facts of the case.

T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 was originally O.P. No. 136 of 1983 for issue of probate. Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal, the testatrix acquired the properties from her husband V. Krishnamachari on his death in the year 1909. At that time, the testatrix was a minor. Later she became major and is said to have been in enjoyment of the property as widow of late Krishnamachary. The said Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal is the paternal aunt of the defendants in T.O.S. and the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. The claim is made by the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 as reversioners.

The father of Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal appears to have put forward a Will from her husband V. Krishnamachari and the same was subject matter of proceedings in O.S. No. 37 of 1909 on the file of the District Court, Chingleput and the same was dismissed and the appeal therefrom viz. A.S. No. 108 of 1911, on the file of this Court was also dismissed on 18.2.1913. These proceedings may not be very relevant for the purpose of decision of issues that now arise.

Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal executed two usufructuary mortgage deeds dated 20.8.1937 in favour of Ethirajammal, her mother. The same is marked as Ex.P4. The mortgagee Ethirajammal executed a Gift Deed dated 1.10.1937 transferring her interests as mortgagee in favour of Panjavama Perumal and Mudaliyandavar Temple at Nazarathepet. Thereupon, the father of the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 viz. V. Srinivasachari filed O.S. No. 126 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Poonamallee for a declaration that the mortgage deeds dated 20.8.1937 in favour of Ethirajammal by Pattammal in respect of the properties and the later Gift by Ethirajammal in favour of the temple are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the reversion. The decree copy is marked as Ex.P7. A joint endorsement was made and the result was a decree for declaration was granted declaring that the mortgage deeds will not be binding on the reversion and that the temple will be placed in possession of the properties. This decree was dated 8-7-1939. However, Ethirajammal, the mortgagee obtained a release deed from the Devasthanam dated 4.9.1943 (marked as Ex.P16 in and by which the Devasthanam released their rights assigned to them under the usufructuary mortgage in favour of Ethirajammal. Subsequently Ethirajammal also died. Consequently, Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal came into possession of the properties and has been in enjoyment of the same.

The plaint, C.S. No. 746 of 1984 was filed on the basis that Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal was not in possession of the suit properties prior to the suits and decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1938 and O.S. No. 25 of 1938. O.S. No. 25 of 1938 on the file of District Munsif''s Court, Poonamallee was a suit filed by the temple to enforce their mortgage rights, which was also disposed of along with O.S. No. 126 of 1938 on 8.7.1939. Consequently, the subject matter of both O.S. No. 126 of 1938 and O.S. No. 25 of 1938, on the file of the District Munisif''s Court, Poonamallee were the same.

As stated above, the claim of the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 that Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal was not possessed of the suit properties prior to the aforesaid proceedings before the District Munsif''s Court, Poonamalle and that she had no right to dispose of the property as she never got absolute rights, but only a life interest and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the properties as reversioners and as heirs of Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal, who according to the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984, died intestate. It was stated in the plaint that Pattammal had no competency to execute any Will and that by virtue of the compromise in O.S. No. 126 of 1938, on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Poonamallee dated 8.7.1939, the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the properties on the death of Pattammal. The genuineness of the Will put forward by the executor T.S.R. angachari in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 was disputed. Hence, in the suit C.S. No. 746 of 1984, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of title to the properties and for possession.

On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by this court on 2.9.1987:-

(1) Whether the Will dated 17.11.1971 was executed by Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal?

(2) If so, whether the Will was executed by Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal in a sound and disposing state of mind?

(3) Whether the Will dated 17.11.1971 held if true was obtained by undue influence or coercion?

(4) Whether the defendants have no rights in the properties covered under the Will and whether Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal was entitled to execute the Will in respect of the properties covered under the Will?

(5) Whether the defendants have no rights order any of the properties that belong to Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal at any time?

(6) To what reliefs are the parties entitled?

The following questions also arise in C.S. No. 746 of 1984:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaring their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the defendants ?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit property as Reversioners and as heirs of Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal?

(3) Whether the Will dated 17.11.1971 has been accepted and acted upon by all the parties including the plaintiffs, as contended by the first defendant?

(4) Whether the present suit is not maintainable?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are not the reversioners or the legal representatives of Pattammal who died on 11.1.1982 and are not entitled to succeed to her estate?

(6) Whether Pattammal''s widow''s estates got enlarged as absolute estate on coming into force of the Act 30 of 1956?

By consent of parties, a joint trial was taken in the above two matters. On behalf of the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983, the scribe Muthuswamy Aiyer was examined as P.W.1 in debennese. The plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983, the executor, was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendants one V.S. Krishnaswamy was examined as D.W.1. The said Krishnaswamy is the 1st plaintiff in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 and the other plaintiff 2 to 6 are his brothers. They are the sons of Srinivasa Aiyangar.

7-A. T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 has been filed for issue of probate of the Will dated 17.11.1971 in respect of the estate of Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkatammal who died on 11.1.1982. Ex.A1 is the English translation of the said Will. The exact Tamil version of the Will is also available at pages 36 to 45 in the documents. The testatrix has appointed Mr. T.S. Rangachari, as the executor.

All the properties have been given for religious purposes only. The Will dated 17.11.1971, executed by Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal was registered at Madras. The attesting witnesses of the said will are (1) Kannammal who died after the O.P. proceedings have been filed and (2) Srinivasa Pillai, who died on 15.11.1975 as per Ex.P13 which is the Certificate of Death issued under S.12 of the Registration of Deaths and Births Act, 1959. The scribe Muthuswamy Iyer had been examined as P.W.1 debennese. P.W.2 is the executor. One Kannammal, the attesting witness has filed her attesting affidavit. The contesting defendants are the reversioners to the estate viz. the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984. They are the sons of V. Srinivasa Aiyer. The respondents great grand father Veeravalli Krishnamachari and Pattammal''s father-in-law Veeravalli Appalachari are brothers. The properties admittedly belonged to Appalachari and the property bought by the deceased Pattammal is widow''s estate as admitted by Mr. Srinivasa Achari in his notice dated 11.10.1937 which has been marked as Ex.P6. That the property purchased by Pattammal is widow''s estate is admitted by D.W.1 even in his evidence D.W.1 says in his evidence as follows:-

Q. Who was in possession of the properties at the time of her death?

A: From the date of decree till the date of her death she was in possession of the properly.

Q: Several lawyer notices are given. In those notices it is stated that she was enjoying the properties as window''s estate. Is that statement correct?

A: Yes.

At that time the dispute raised by Srinivasa Achari, the father of the respondents is that Pattammal has surrendered the widow''s estate and after surrendering the estate she has no right to mortgage the properties in favour of her mother Ethiraj Animal. This is seen from Ex.P4, dated 20.8.1937. Ethiraj Ammal in turn mortgaged those properties to Pachavarna Perumal temple, represented by its trustee P.N. Evalappa Mudaliar on 1.9.1937 under Ex.P5 Srinivasa Achari, the father of the defendants questioned these mortgages in O.S. No. 126 of 1937, on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Poonamallee. Ex.P7 is the compromise decree dated 8.7.1939. In the said suit, Srinivasa Achari was the plaintiff and Pattammal and Ethiraj Ammal were defendants. The temple of Sri Pachavarna Perumal and Sri. Mudali Andan Swami at Agarammal was the 3rd defendant. Under the above compromise the claim set up by Srinivasachari that there was a surrender by the widow Veeravalli Pattammal in their favour was given up. It was agreed that the mortgage by Pattammal under Exhibits P4 and P5 will not be binding on the reversioners estate and she only has to discharge it.

Mr. V. Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 and the defendants in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 has contended that the effect of this decree is only that no new rights are conferred on Pattammal and that her widow''s estate is re-affirmed and her possession of the properties is also affirmed. She has only been made responsible for discharging the mortgage. He further invited my attention to the following in proof of Pattammal''s possession of the estate on the date of the Hindu Succession Act:

On 4.9.1943, under Ex.P16, the temple surrenders the mortgage and returns the properly to Ethirajammal. On 2.11.1951 Ethirajammal also died, as could be seen from Ex.P12 which is the Death Certificate issued by the competent authority under S.12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act.

Therefore, Pattammal is the only daughter and also heir of Ethirajammal and on the death of Ethirajammal, Pattammal succeeds to all her properties including the suit properties.

To show that Pattammal has also been enjoying the properties, Mr. V. Srinivasan, the learned counsel invited my attention to the following exhibits.

(a) Ex.P8, dated 31.12.1943, the lease deed executed between Pattammal and Muthu Mudaliar.

(b) Ex.P9 the lease deed dated 27.6.1949 executed between Pattammal and Kuppuswami Pillai.

(c) Ex.P10, the lease deed executed between Pattammal and Thiruvenkataswamy, dated 17.3.1951.

The above three documents Ex.P8, P9 and P10 will clearly show that from 4.9.1943, the date of surrender by the temple, only Pattammal is in possession and enjoyment of the properly in question.

On 15.2.1957, V.T. Vedantharamanuja Achariar issues notice to tenant Kannappa Naicker on behalf of the Pattammal. This notice refers to a tenant Manikkavachakam Pillai vacating lands in July, 1955 and thereafter Kannappa Naicker taking the lands on lease from Pattammal. This can be seen from Ex.P11, dated 15th February, 1957. Thus, all the above documents clearly show that only Pattammal was in possession on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force viz. on 17.6.1956.

It is also necessary to mention that even D.W.1 in his evidence has clearly admitted that only Pattammal was in possession from 1938 onwards which has already been extracted above. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. V. Srinivasan, that under S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act Pattammal''s rights get enlarged and she had become the absolute owner of the properties, and that she had executed earlier two wills viz. Ex.A2 dated 24.5.1957 and Ex.A3 dated 27.12.1961 besides the suit will dated 17.11.1971 only in that context. That apart, all these are registered wills and under the Wills she had given her properties only for religious purposes. No individual member had been benefited. I see much force in the contention of Mr. V. Srinivasan, the learned Senior Counsel.

Per contra, Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the properties admittedly belong to the testatrix Pattammal and at the time when she executed the Will her estate was only a life estate. The question whether it has become enlarged by virtue of the passing of the Hindu Succession Act is to be answered by this Court. According to Mr. N.S. Varadachari, Pattammal was not in possession of the properties and the mortgagee was in possession. As per the decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1938, on the file of the District Munsif''s court, Poonamallee, it has been clearly declared that the rights of the reversioners have not affected. That the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 or the reversioners entitled to the property is not disputed. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that the rights of Pattammal in the properties admittedly tenure only upto her life time as per the decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1938 Pattammal cannot claim to have absolute rights so as to bequeath the same to anyone. Hence, according to Mr. N.S. Varadachari, only S.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act will apply. The estate of Pattammal being a limited one, it will devolve on the reversioners after her death and the plea put forward by the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 that the rights of Pattammal became absolute with the passing of the Hindu Succession Act and S.14(1) of the said Act alone will apply may not be correct. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by Mr. N.S. Varadachari, for the reasons stated supra while considering the arguments of Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

The only question that remains is the genuineness of the Will. It was submitted by Mr. N.S. Varadachari that Will, has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of S.68 of the Evidence Act, because none of the attesting witnesses have been examined. Only the scribe has been examined. Though an affidavit of attesting witness Mrs. Kannammal has been produced, no steps have been taken to examine her prior to her demise. Now it is stated that she is no more and hence on the basks of the evidence of the scribe alone the Will cannot be upheld. According to Mr. N.S. Varadachari, though the deceased Pattammal was suffering from paralytic stroke and she was laid up in Sriperumbudur and she was being attended by Dr. Balaji and that she was not in a position to move about and therefore she could not have come over to Madras in 1971 and executed the Will put forward now.

Mr. N.S. Varadachari further contended that there is no power of revocation reserved under the said Will. According to the defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983, the Will was obtained by undue influence and coercion. That the defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 have caveatable interest cannot be disputed. It is no doubt, true that under the Will now put forward, late Pattammal had given all the properties to the charities and appointed the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 as executor. There is no proof that Pattammal had sound disposing state of mind and voluntarily executed the Will.

Mr. N.S. Varadachari has, further urged that the defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 no doubt have not examined any independent witness. Therefore, he submitted that in view of he disputes already made clear by way of notice under Ex.P17 to P20, the Will should have been brought about by undue influence and coercion and the Will has not been validly proved in accordance with law. If the Will is displaced, the plaintiff in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 will be entitled to a decree for declaration. An alternative argument was advanced by Mr. Varadachari that if this court come to the conclusion that Pattammal had testamentary capacity and that she was absolute owner of the properties by virtue of the passing of the Hindi Succession Act, 1956 then she was competent to execute the Will and subject to this court upholding the Will, the result of the suits will flow. As far as the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 are concerned, they are contending that the Will is not true document. In conclusion of his argument Mr. Varadachari submitted that T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 may be dismissed and C.S. No. 746 of 1984 may be decreed.

In answer to the submissions made above by Mr. N.S. Varadachari Mr. V. Srinivasan learned counsel for the plaintiffs in T.O.S. No. 1 of 1983 and the first defendant in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 has contended as under:- Though it was vaguely stated that Pattammal has not executed the Will or it might be a forged one, there was no evidence about it, Even when P.Ws.1 and 2 were in the witness box, no suggestion has been made that somebody has signed the Will as Pattammal or that it is forged. Further, there are so many documents executed by Pattammal available in Court, viz., Exs.A1 to A3, the Wills Ex.P4, usufructuary mortgage and Ex.P8 to P10, the lease deeds executed by her. The defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 have not disputed about the genuineness of these documents. In my opinion, these allegations made by the defendants in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 that the Will is forged have been made without any basis. Such an allegation without any proof thereof cannot at all be accepted. The Will has been executed on 17.11.1971. Pattammal survived the Will for over 11 years and she passed away only on 11.1.1982. It was stated that she was suffering from paralysis for 18 years. But, it was not stated what type of paralytic attack she was suffering from, whether she was able to move out or not has not been proved. Except stating that she required assistance, it was also nowhere stated that she was not in a sound disposing state of mind or that she was influenced or that she was acting at the dictates of any person or that she could not execute any Will.

The reference to the earlier two Wills under which also, she gave all the properties only for religious purposes, clearly shows that even in the last Will she had only kept that in her mind and executed the Will and not changed her ideas from 1957 to give her properties to religious and charitable purposes. It is nobody case that she was unwell in 1957 or that there is any change of mind after 1957 as regards her dispositions. It is absolutely incorrect to state that she was not in a position to move about and that she could not execute the Will. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that on 12.3.1980, under Ex.P14, Kuttiamma, Krishnaswamy''s sister, asks her to come to Agramel village to witness the festival. If she is unable to move about as now claimed, such a letter could not have been written.

On 20.10.1979 and 4.4.1981, under Ex.P23 and P24 Pattammal herself goes to the Registrar''s office for registering two Tease deeds in favour of Sundararama Naidu and Moorthy. The Will of 1971 itself i.e. Ex.A1 was registered at Madras Registrar''s Office. The evidence of D.W.1 in this regard is very vague. It is also not without significance that there is not even a single letter or communication between Pattammal and the respondent. There is no answer, much less any satisfactory answer in this aspect of the matter. This, in my view, shows that the claim that she was not well and not in a sound and disposing state of mind is not correct.

In regard to the argument of Mr. N.S. Varadachari that the Will was executed under coercion and undue influence, Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 has urged the following points. A vague allegation was made that the Will was brought about by coercion and undue influence as seen from para 7 of the Written Statement.

It is stated therein as follows:-

that the Will is a fabricated document brought about by the plaintiff by either forging of the deceased or by exercising undue influence and coercion.

In what way, the plaintiff was in a position to induce or influence the deceased has not been stated, much less undue influence and coercion have neither been pleaded nor proved. There are no particulars given. There is absolutely no proof. In my view they are mere allegations without any proof and hence no credulance can be given to such a stand taken in the Written Statement.

When P.W.2 was in the witness box, no questions about undue influence or coercion or lubrication was put to him. Even D.W.2 has not put forward any such case in his evidence. Mr. V. Srinivasan, the learned counsel submitted that Veeravalli Pattammal was in enjoyment of the property only as widow''s estate and the decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1938 has not in any manner affected that position. Therefore, she had become the absolute owner of the properties, according to the learned counsel, on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1950 on 11.6.1956. I See much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. V. Srinivasan.

In so far as the contention of Mr. N.S. Varadachari that Pattammal was not in a sound disposing state of mind when executing the Will, Mr. Srinivasan contended that she had executed three Wills, one Ex.A2 dated 24-5-1957 the second being Ex.A3 dated 27.12.1961 and the third one being Ex.A1 dated 17.11.1971. In this connection, he pointed out that it is also relevant to mention that even after the execution of Ex.A1, dated 17.11.1971, there are exchange of notices between the respondents and the said Pattammal being Ex.P17 dated 24.4.1972, Ex.P18, dated 7.5.1972, Ex.P19 dated 10.8.1972 and Ex.P20 dated 7.9.1972. The important thing in these notices is that a complaint is made against Pattammal that she has been cutting the trees or committing acts of waste or that the value of the lands are going down by her actions. The significant fact is that there is no complaint that she was laid up on account of paralytic attack and that others are acting at her behest and that she was not mentally sound. There is also no proof that she was at the mercy of her relations for her daily routine or that she is being looked after by the mother of the defendants. The claim that the deceased and D.W.1 are having good terms is false and absolutely without any basis.

It was also stated that the deceased never intended to execute the Will. She very much wanted to execute the Will and has done so which is evidence from Exs.A1 to A3. It is also stated that disposition under the Will shows the utter falsity of the circumstances under which the Will was brought about by the plaintiffs. Nothing has been shown or pointed out about this matter. No suggestions were put to P.W.2 and nothing has also been stated by D.W.1 in his evidence. Therefore, the entire objections questioning the Will have to be overruled.

The factual position is that there was no love lost between Pattammal and V.S. Krishnasamy and brothers and even in 1938, their father Srinivasachari filed a case claiming that Pattammal surrendered the estate to them. Then again, there were exchange of notices in 1972 which are evident from Exs.P17 to 20. There was not even one single occasion referred to when Pattammal was asked to come to the house of Krishnasamy and brothers or for her participating in any family functions or marriages. From the evidence tendered both oral and documentary, I am able to see that Pattammal from the very beginning is only disposed towards religion and religious matters and she has accordingly given all her properties only for religious endowments to the various temples and she has not given any property to any individual. The plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983, T.S. Rangachari, who in my opinion appears to be a pious God-fearing man is a mere executor and he has not been given any beneficial interest in the estate. I have closely watched his demeanor when he was in the witness box as P.W.2. I am fully satisfied that the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983, Mr. T.S. Rangachari, in his capacity as executor Will certainly carry out the directions given by Pattammal in regard to the performance of various religious endowments and charities to the various temples. I am impressed with his oral evidence.

Mr. V. Srinivasan, in support of his legal submissions mentioned above has cited the following decisions.

Before dealing with the decisions relied on by Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is useful to extract S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which reads as follows:

Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or alter 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 moveable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or device, or at a partition, or in (sic) 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 stridhan immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in Sub-S.(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 (sic) such property.

The main object of the Act has been to confer better rights on Hindu women. S.14 is the continuation of the same objectives which permeate in many provisions of the Act. S.14 has introduced fundamental changes in the traditional Hindu law of property of woman. Before the coming into force of the Act the woman''s property was classified under the following two heads: (a) Stridhan and (2) Woman''s estate. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 recognised certain female as heirs, and similarly the Hindu Women''s Rights to Property Act, 1937 conferred some new rights of inheritance on certain females which had the effect of increasing the bulk of women''s estate, but did not alter the basic division of woman''s property into stridhan and woman''s estate, though the latter statute had considerable side effects on the coparcenary. But the Act abolishes women''s estate by converting it into stridhan, or absolute property. It would be seen that now by whatever mode a woman acquires or gets the property, such as by inheritance, device, partition, or by way of provision for maintenance, arrears of maintenance or gift (received by her at any time of her life, and received from any person, relations or strangers) or by her own skill under the provisions of sub-S.(2) of S.14, that is to say if she is given a limited estate under a deed Will or order or decree of the court, she will have it accordingly. The objects of S.14 of the Act are the following:

a. To remove all disability of a Hindu woman to acquire and deal with properly, i.e., all the property that she acquires Will be her absolute property.

b. To convert existing woman''s estate into full estate.

With this background let me now analyse the Judgment cited by Mr. V. Srinivasan in support of his legal submissions on S.14(1) of the Act:

In the decision reported in V. Tulasamma and Others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs., it was held as under:

S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. According to the Explanation to this sub-section the term property includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or in any other manner whatsoever. Sub Section (2) provides that nothing sub-S.(1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument which prescribes a restricted estate in such property.

In the decision reported in Bai Vajia (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Thakorbhai Chelabhai and Others, the Supreme Court while considering Ss.14(1) and (2) of the Act and the Explanation of sub-S.(1) of S.14 held as under:

For the applicability of sub S.(1) of S.14 two conditions must co-exist namely.

(1) the concerned female Hindu must be possessed of property; and

(2) such property must be possessed by her as a limited owner.

If these two conditions are fulfilled, the sub section gives her the right to hold the property as a full owner irrespective of the fact whether she acquired it before or after the commencement of the Act.

A plain reading of sub-S.(1) of S.14 of the Act makes it clear that the concerned Hindu female must have limited ownership in property, which limited ownership would get enlarged by the operation of that sub section. If it was intended to enlarge any sort of a right which could in no sense be described as ownership the expression and not as a limited owners'', would not have been used at all and becomes redundant, which is against the well known principle of interpretation of statutes that the Legislature does not imply meaningless language.

Limited ownership in the concerned Hindu female is thus a sine quo non for the applicability of sub-S.(1) of S. 14 of the Act. In a case where this condition is fulfilled the Hindu female represents the estate completely and the reversioners of her husband have only a spes succession is i.e. a mere chance of succession which is not a vested interest and a transfer of which is a nullity. The widow is competent to protect the property from all kinds of trespass and to sue and he sued for all purposes in relation thereto so long as she is alive. Ownership in the fullest sense is a sum total of all the rights which may possibly flow from title to property, while limited ownership in its very nature must be a bundle of rights constituting in their totality not full ownership but something less.

When a widow holds the properly for her enjoyment as long as she lives, nobody is entitled to deprive her of it or to deal with the property in any manner to her detriment. The property is for the time being beneficially vested in her and she has the occupation, control and usufruct of it to the exclusion of all others. Such a relationship to property falls squarely within the meaning of the expression limited owner as used in sub-S.(1) of S.14 of the Act.

Applying the above test to the instant case, Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvengadammal became a full owner of the land in dispute under the provisions of Sub-S.(1) of S.14 of the Act and that sub-S.(2) thereof has no application to her case, the property having been given to her as a limited owner and in recognition of her pre-existing right against the property.

In the decision reported in Jagannathan v. Kunjithapadam AIR 1987 SC 1493 the Supreme Court has held as follows:

Where a Hindu widow regains possession of a property (in which she had a limited ownership) subsequent to the commencement of the Act upon the transfer of the very same property to her by the transferee in whose favour she had transferred it prior to the commencement of the Act she would become its absolute owner.

It is settled that the limited estate or limited ownership of a Hindu female would enlarge into an absolute estate or full ownership of the property in question the following fact situation (1) where she acquired the limited estate in the property before or after the commencement of the Act provided she was in possession of the property at the time of the coming into force of the Act on June, 17, 1956 (2) Liven if the property in question was possessed by her in lieu of her right to maintenance as against the estate of her deceased husband or the joint family properly she would be entitled to become a full or absolute owner having regard to the fact that the origin of her right was traceable to the right against her husband''s estate.

This is a landmark case explaining the scope of S.14(1) of the Act. Where a Hindu widow who had transferred prior to the commencement of the Act, the property having limited ownership, comes into possession of the same upon the transfer of the very same property after the commencement of the Act, the Supreme Court held that she becomes absolute owner of that properly. The controversy between the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts on one hand and the High Courts of Madras, Punjab, Bombay and Gujarat on the other thus resolved. The Supreme Court has overruled the view taken by Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the above Judgment.

In the decision reported in Thota Sesharathnamma v. Thota Manikyamma 1991 4 SCC 312, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:

S.14(2) of the Act is in the nature of a proviso or an exception to S.14 and comes into operation only if acquisition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu to the property. If the case falls under the provisions of S.14(1) of the Act then the female Hindu shall be held to be full owner of the property and sub-S.(2) of S.14 will only apply where the property is acquired without there being any preexisting right of the female Hindu in such property. This view lends support to the object of the Section which was to remove the disability on women imposed by law and to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu Society.

The Hindu Succession Act revolutionised the status of a Hindu female; used S.14(1) as a tool to undo past injustice to relevate her to equal status with dignity of person on par with man; extinguished pre-existing limitation of woman''s estate, or widow''s estate known to Shastric law and removed all the fetters to blossom the same into full ownership. Its effect must be tested on the avail of socio economic justice, equality of status and to oversee whether it would subserve the constitutional animation or frustrate it. Article 15(3) relieves from the rigour of Article 15(1) and charges the State to make special provision to accord to women socio economic equality. The court would endeavour to give full effect to legislative and constitutional vision of socio economic equality to female citizen by granting full ownership of property to a Hindu female. As a matter of fact Article 15(3) as a fore-runner to common code does animate to make a law to accord socio economic equality to every female citizen of India respective of religion, race, caste or region. The Court would therefore endeavour to find whether terms of the deposition or clauses in the instruments Will etc., enumerated in S. 14 would permeate the aforestated constitutional conscience to relieve the Hindu female from the Shastric bondage of limit of estate.

S.14(1) enlarges the restricted estate into full ownership when the Hindu female has pre-existing right to maintenance etc., sub-S.(2) operates when the grant was made for the first time under the documents with no pre-existing right Sub-S.(2) therefore, must be read as an exception or a proviso to sub-S.(1) Both the sub-sections read with the Explanation to be pragmatically considered as a constituent integral scheme. The interpretation of the proviso or an exception should not be to allow to eat away the vital veins, of full ownership accorded by sub-S.(1) of S.14. The Court would sit in the armchair of the testator or its maker and summon to its aid the attending circumstances to execute the instrument, the relationship of the parties and to see whether the Hindu female acquired the property with vestige of pre-existing right and the Will, gift deed, order decree or an award of the civil Court or in any of the forms known to law was executed in recognition thereof or entitled under the existing law. If the finding is positive her limited estate, though created with restrictive covenants in instrument or an omission to expressly so mention in full particulars thereof in the instrument in that regard are of little consequence. Her limited estate gets blossomed into full ownership under S.14(1) with a right to bequeath, gill over alienate or to deal in any manner recognised by law. If, on the other hand the Hindu female acquires for the first time the title therein as a grant with restrictive estate under the instrument with no pre-existing title or right, sub-S.(2) of S.14 gets attracted and the restrictive covenants contained in the instrument would bind her. She remains to be a limited owner in terms thereof. The subsequent alienee or transferee acquires no higher fight thereunder than the legatee etc. The reversioner to the last male holder is not bound by such transfer and is entitled to succeed to the estate, on her demise, in terms of the instrument.

In the decision reported in Seth Badri Prasad Vs. Srimati Kanso Devi, the Supreme Court held as follows:

The words ''possessed'' and ''acquired'' in S.14(1) are used with the widest possible meaning so that the possession may be either actual or constructive and the acquisition can be in any manner whatsoever. Hence, where a female Hindu has a share in joint properties which are later on partitioned by metes and bounds and she gets possession of the properties allotted to her, before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she was not only possessed of that property at the time of the coming into force of the Act but had also acquired it before its commencement. The mere fact that the partition was by means of an arbitration award would not bring the matter within S.14(2) as S.14(1) had already become applicable. S.14(2) is in the nature of a proviso or an exception 10 S.14(1) and comes into operation only if acquisition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre existing right in the female Hindu to the Property.

In the decision reported in Lukshmi Ammal v. Lukshmanan & Ors. 1988 II MLJ 469, Kader, J. has held as follows:

Para 11. It is settled law that the property acquired by a female Hindu before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 Will blossom into a full estate only if that properly was possessed by the Hindu female at the time of the commencement of the Act. It is also well settled that the term ''possessed'' had a wide and liberal connotation and includes not only actual or constructive possession but also possession in law.

In the instant case it is proved beyond doubt that Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal was in possession of the estate on the date of the Hindu Succession Act. It is also proved that she has been enjoying the properties by executing various release deeds and exercising her right of ownership. The enormous documents filed in this case on behalf of the plaintiff in the above T.O.S. will clearly go to show that from 4-9-1943, vis., the date of surrender by the temple only Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The documents viz., Exs.P16, P17, P18, P19 and P20 will also clearly establish that only Pattammal was in possession of the same, on the date when the Act came into force viz., 17-0- 1956. Even D.W.1 in his own evidence clearly admitted that only Pattammal was in possession from 1938 onwards. It is therefore very clear that under S.14(1) of the Act, Pattammal''s right get enlarged and she had become absolute owner of the properties and only in that context, she had executed earlier two Wills viz. Ex.A2 dated 24-5-1957 and Ex.A3 dated 27-12-1961 and even the suit Will Ex.A1 dated 17-11-1971.

Thus for the foregoing reasons, I decree T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 as prayed for with costs. The Will is proved in solemn form. The petitioner in hi capacity as executor named under the Will is entitled to administer the properties and credits of Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal as per the directions given in the Will. Thus I hold on issue No. 1 that the Will dated 17-11-1971 was executed by Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal and that the same was executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind. The Will was not executed by Veeravalli Patlammal alias Thiruvenkadammal as alleged by the defendants in the above T.O.S. in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 by undue influence or coercion. Hence issue No. 3 in T.O.S. answered against his defendants. The defendants have absolutely no right in the properties covered under the Will since the reversioner, Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal was entitled to execute the Will in respect of the properties covered under the Will. The defendants have no rights over any of the properties that belong to Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal at any time. Hence, the defendants are not entitled to any relief either in the T.O.S. No. 13 of 1983 or in C.S. No. 746 of 1984. Issues 4 and 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs in T.O.S. Since I have already given my findings that Veeravalli Pattammal alias Thiruvenkadammal was in possession of the properties at the time of her death and she was competent to execute the Will, as her rights became enlarged as absolute rights by virtue of S.14 of the Act, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 746 of 1984 (O.S. No. 17 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpat) has necessarily to fail. The plaintiffs in the said suit are not entitled for any declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the defendants. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are answered in favour of the first defendant and against the plaintiffs, for the reasons given in this judgment. In the result, T.O.S. 13 of 1983 is decreed with costs and C.S. No. 746 of 1984 is dismissed with costs.