ERAMMA Vs. VEERUPANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the Judgment -debtor. Eramma against the judgment and decree dated June 9, 1965 in R. A. No. 90 of 1957 of the High Court of Mysore setting aside the order of the District Judge of Raichur, dated February 14, 1957 dismissing an execution petition.

(2.) The appellant - Eramma - and the 3rd respondent - Siddamma - were, at the relevant time, widows of Eran Gowda who also had a third wife - Sharnamma. By the said Sharnamma, Eran Gowda had a son called Basanna who died in the year 1347 F. (corresponding to 1936-37 A D.) at a time when he was the sole male holder of the property in dispute. After his death his stepmothers Eramma and Siddamma got into possession of the properties. Respondents 1 and 2 thereafter filed a suit in the Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga claiming that they, as the nearest heirs of Basanna, were entitled to all the properties left by him and seeking to recover possession thereof from his stepmothers - Eramma and Siddamma. The suit was contested by Eramma on the ground that she had adopted Sogan Gouda, respondent No. 4 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been given of her by her husband Eran Gowda. It was claimed by Siddamma that she had adopted Sharnappa, respondent No. 5 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been conveyed under a will. The trial Court rejected the case of Eramma but upheld that of Siddamma. On appeal to the High Court, Siddamma's claim of adoption was also negative. In the result the High Court passed a decree in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Eramma and Siddamma thereafter applied to the High Court for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court. Siddamma was grated such certificate but the High Court refused to grant a certificate to Eramma who filed an application in this Court for special leave. During the pendency of these proceedings the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force with effect from June 17, 1956. Respondents 1 and 2 have put to execution the decree granted by the High Court in their favour. Eramma filed an objection in the Execution Court on the ground that she had been in possession of half the properties since the death of her husband and the decree was non-executable in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that she had now become full owner of the properties of which she is in possession. The case of Eramma was accepted by the District Judge, Raichur who dismissed the execution case on February 14, 1957. Respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the Mysore High Court against the order of the District Judge dismissing the execution case. The appeal was allowed by the High Court on the ground that Hindu Succession Act 1956 was not applicable to the case and Eramma did not acquire full ownership under S. 14 (1) of that Act. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of he District Judge dated February 14, 1957 dismissing the execution case and restored the execution case to file of the District Judge for being dealt with in accordance with law.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant Mr. Sinha contended, in the first place, that under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the appellant being the step-mother is entitled to inherit the properties of Baswan Gouda in preference to respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Sinha conceded that Baswan Gouda died on October 23, 1936 long before the coming into operation of Hindu Succession Act. It was, however submitted for the appellant that S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was retrospective in operation and the appellant must be held to be in possession of the properties in her own right. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. Sinha is not warranted by the language of S. 8 which is to the following effect: