M P LATHIKA Vs. JAYASREE SIVANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the donee to whom immovable property was gifted along with her three sons, with a condition that she would have a life estate, is entitled to claim the protection under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act; or whether it would come under Section 14(2) of the said Act.

(2.) The AFA arises out of a suit for partition in respect of eleven items of immovable properties. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Kumaran Vaidyar and Janaki. Defendants 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of the first defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the second defendant. Kumaran Vaidyar died on 8.8.1967 and his widow Janaki died on 6.8.1991. Item Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly belonged to Kumaran Vaidyar. In this appeal, we are concerned with only item Nos. 1 and 2. Item Nos.3 to 8 belonged to Janaki, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Item Nos.9 to 11 belonged to Kumaran Vaidyar. Plaintiff claimed a one-third share in the plaint schedule properties. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of item Nos.9 to 11. On appeal by the plaintiff, a learned single Judge of this Court in modification of the preliminary decree passed by the court below passed a decree granting one-third share to the plaintiff in item Nos. 1, 2 and 9 to 11.

(3.) Item Nos. 1 and 2 and another item of immovable property were gifted by Kumaran Vaidyar as per Ext.A1 gift deed, dated 28.4.1961. According to the plaintiff, the gift was in favour of Janaki and her children together, with a life estate in favour of Janaki in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 in the gift deed (which are item Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule). According to the contesting defendants, item Nos. 1 and 2 were gifted by Kumaran Vaidyar to Janaki and item No. 3 in the gift deed was gifted in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The defendants contended that Janaki had absolute title over item Nos. 1 and 2 and that there was no creation of a life estate in her favour.