J SATYANARAYANA Vs. J SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants. The suit was filed for a declaration that the sale deed dt.29-6-1959 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule properties is not binding on them beyond the lifetime of the second defendant. The B schedule properties originally belonged to the joint family of Papaiah Setty, who died in the year 1937. The geneology is as follows:* * * Papaiah Setty had. two sons through his first wife, Veeranna Setty who died on 15-11-1958 and Seetharama Setty who died in 1942. The plaintiffs are the children of Veeranna Setty. 'Seetharama Setty's widow is defendant-4, <IMG>JUDGEMENT_15_MYSLJ1_1972Image1.jpg</IMG> and defendants 5 and 6 are his sons. The second defendant is the second wife of Papaiah Setty. The third defendant is the son of Papaiah Setty through his second wife, the second defendant. After the death of Papaiah Setty, Seetharama Setty went out of the joint family executing a registered relinquishment deed dt.28-9-1940 in favour of the late Veeranna Setty and defendants 2 and 3. Under the said deed, Seetharama Setty relinquished his rights in the remaining joint family properties excepting his right to a share in the properties to be allotted to the second defendant after her life time. Late Veeranna Settv and defendants 2 and 3 continued as joint family members till 1944. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a suit for partition OS. 12/45, on the file of the District Court. Bellary. It was transferred to the sub Court and numbered as OS.3/1947. The suit was decreed and the parties preferred appeals in AS.No.739/57 and 758 of 1957 on the file of the High Court of Judicature, Madras. The said appeals were disposed of on 21-11-1949. The High Court declared that the second defendant got only a limited estate under the deed dt.25-8-1940. In the final decree proceedings, the second defendant was allotted suit B schedule properties towards her share among other properties. According to the plaintiffs, the properties allotted to the second defendant should revert to the three sons of late Papaiah Setty or their heirs. The plaintiffs' father died on 15-11-1958 leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his heirs. Seetharam Setty died in 1942 leaving behind him defendants 4, 5 and 6 as his heirs. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to 1/3 share and the defendants 4, 5 and 6 together to 1/3 share in the properties allotted to the second defendant after her life time. The second defendant has executed a registered sale deed of the B schedule properties on 29-6-59 in favour of the first defendant for an alleged consideration of Rs.5,000 even though she has no right to alienate the properties since she has only a limited right in them. According to the plaintiffs, the sale is not for legal necessity and is not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The first defendant pleaded that the second defendant has a right to alienate the properties. He denied that she had only a limited interest in the properties. He also pleaded that the second defendant has a right to alienate the properties for legal necessity. He further pleaded that the rights of the second defendant have been enlarged by virtue of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956, as she was in possession of the properties at the commencement of the said Art. He also pleaded that the second defendant had incurred debts in connection with the marriage of her second daughter, that she was due in a sum of Rs.5,000 to one R.S.Rathnamma under a pronote dt.2-5-1951, that he made bona fide enquiries about the existence of the debt and the legal necessity for the said debt and that the second defendant discharged the debt out of the sale consideration paid by him. So, he is a bona fide purchaser for value without any notice of the alleged limited rights ol the second defendant or any reversionary rights thereof. He further pleaded that after the sale he has made improvements by spending Rs.600.

(3.) The second defendant pleaded that in the partition suit and the final decree proceedings she took possession of the B schedule properties and continued to be in possession till she parted with them under the sale deed dt.29-6-1959 in favour of the first defendant. She contended that she had become the absolute owner and the reversionary rights got extinguished on and after 17-6-1956, and that even if she is held to be entitled to only a limited estate, the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant is supported by legal necessity and binding on the reversioners. The High Court of Madras, on a true and proper construction of the relinquishment deed held that it conferred on her the rights which she was entitled to under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The High Court also held that she was free to alienate the properties for the marriage expenses of her unmarried daughters. She contended that she entered into possession of the properties in December 1953 and continued to be in possession till 17-6-1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, and that under S.14(1) of the said Act, she became the full owner of the properties. She further stated that she incurred the debt of R.S.Rathnamma for the marriage of her daughter and she gave a dowry of Rs.10.000 to her son-in-law and performed the marriage at Bellary on 16-5-1951.