RANGASWAMI NAICKER Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARIAKALI Naicken, a resident of Vethilakalipalayam in Coimbatore Dt. who, with his son Sinnamman Naicken, constituted a joint Hindu family, owned the two items of properties, which now form the subject matter of this litigation. The appellant is the son of Sinnamman Naicken. Even before he was born, Sinnamma naicken appears to have executed a release of his interest in the joint family properties in favour of his father. But that circumstance has little bearing to this case, as it has been admitted that even after such release the father and son, and subsequently they along with the appellant lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The properties, can, therefore, be regarded as coparcenary properties of kariakali Naicken and his grandson after the death of Sinnamma Naicken who predeceased his father. Kariali Naicken died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his widow, Angammal, three daughters (who are the respondents to this appeal) and his grandson, the appellant.

(2.) BY virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, angammal became entitled to a half share in the properties of the family, the other half vesting in the appellant. Misunderstandings, however, arose between the two persons, the outcome of which was a suit O. S. No. 63 of 1952 in the district Munsif Court, Coimbatore, by Angammal, for an injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with her possession. That suit, though contested at the beginning terminated in a compromise. The substance of the arrangement was that Angammal was to be declared entitled to half a share of the properties, but possession of that share was to be with the appellant so long as he paid her rents stipulated. The terms of the compromise being material for the purpose of this case, we give below certain relevant clauses thereof :

(3.) BOTH the parties to the compromise enjoyed their respective properties in accordance with the terms thereof. While so, the Central legislature passed the hindu Succession Act, 1956, (Act XXX of 1956); that became effective on 17-61956 when the President gave, his assent to it, Under Section 14 of the enactment every property (subject to the exceptions mentioned therein) held under a limited right under the law by a Hindu female, vested forthwith in her with absolute rights. Angammal, claiming that by reason of Section 14 (1) of the Act, she became entitled to a full disposable interest in what she held, made, on 7-3-1957, a testamentary disposition of the same in favour of her daughters, the respondents herein. Soon afterwards, i. e. on 25th March 1957, the testatrix died. The right of the legatees having been disputed by the appellant, the present suit for partition and separate possession of one halt share in the properties was instituted by the respondents. Their claim failed in the trial court; but on appeal a decree for partition was granted. Venkataraman J. sustained that the decree though on slightly different grounds, granting however, leave to the appellant under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent for this appeal. The case for the appellant has been put forward on two alternative grounds viz. , (1) the compromise is the only source of Angammal's title and, as she obtained only a limited estate thereunder, section 14 (2) will prevent such an estate being enlarged; (2) even if it were to be held that the compromise is merely declaratory of her rights as limited owner under Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, Section 14 (2) of the hindu Succession Act will have the effect of saving even those rights from being enlarged to an absolute estate.