KALIAMMAL Vs. S KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law on the scope of Sec. 14 of the Hind Succession Act, 1956 arises on the facts of the case. The relevant facts are as under:

(2.) THE suit properties agripultural lands-admit-tedly formed part of the partition deed dated 23.8.1926. All the three daughters of Kuppuswami Chettiar had entered into an agreement inter se between them on 12.3.1944 wherein they agreed between themselves that they would enjoy the properties allotted to them absolutely with full power of alienation. THE dispute in the suit arose in the following manner: THE plaintiff, as already stated, is the great grandson of Kuppuswami Chettiar through his third daughter Sornammal, the sister of the appellant, and according to him, he was adopted by the appellant's husband in the year 1972 and the said adoption took place according to the Hindu customs and rites by a deed of adoption dated 12.7.1972. According to the plaintiff, the relationship between the plaintiff and his adoptive mother became strained and the appellant has become the tool in the hands of enemies of the plaintiff and his parents and she was trying to alienate the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the appellant had only life interest over the suit property and the plaintiff has absolute interest in the property by virtue of the partition deed dated 23.8.1926, and therefore, he has filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property after the life time of his adoptive mother Kaliammal the appellant and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or transferring the suit property to the detriment of the plaintiff.

(3.) MR.V.Narayanasamy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the lower appellate court on the interpretation of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was plainly erroneous in law and according to him, in the deed dated 23.8.1926 Kuppuswami Chettiar settled the property in favour of his three daughters for maintenance and the appellant, one of the daughters of Kuppuswami Chettiar, was in possession and enjoyment of the property on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force and she had a vestige of right of maintenance and therefore, her right would blossom into full ownership under Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. He submitted that the property was given for maintenance of the appellant and she was in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was in possession of the suit property by virtue of the right of maintenance granted in her favour and once the property was given for maintenance, her right would enlarge into full ownership as she was in possession and enjoyment of the property on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should be read as a proviso to Sec. 14(1) of the said Act and it should have only restricted operation. He also submitted that right of maintenance is a pre-existing right and once the property was given in recognition of her right of maintenance, the property held by a Hindu female would enlarge into a full ownership, notwithstanding the restrictive covenants contained in the deed of partition. He also submitted that in any event, the rights of the appellant continued to be the same both before and after her marriage and the intention of the settlor was to provide for the maintenance of his daughters and since the rights continued to be same, her rights would enlarge under Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (1) Ramaswami Gounder, etc. v. Adikesava Gounder and others Ramaswami Gounder, etc. v. Adikesava Gounder and others Ramaswami Gounder, etc. v. Adikesava Gounder and others , (1995)2 L.W. 810. (2) C.Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami C.Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami C.Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1697. (3)Shanmugha Udayar (4) (1998)2 C.T.C. 253. (5) Kamala Bai Ammal v. Punyakoti Mudaliar (died) and 14 others Kamala Bai Ammal v. Punyakoti Mudaliar (died) and 14 others Kamala Bai Ammal v. Punyakoti Mudaliar (died) and 14 others , (1998)2 L. W. 452. (6) Raghubar Singh & Ors v. Gulab Singh and others Raghubar Singh & Ors v. Gulab Singh and others Raghubar Singh & Ors v. Gulab Singh and others , (1998)5 A.D. (S.C.) 197. (7) Laxmappa v. Balava K.T. Chavadi Laxmappa v. Balava K.T. Chavadi Laxmappa v. Balava K.T. Chavadi , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3497. (8) Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddi , 90 L.W. 89 (S.N.) and (9) Thota Sesharatnamma and another v. Thota Manikvamma (dead) by Lrs. and others , (1992) L. W. 601. He also submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhura and others v. Kashiram , (1994)2 L.W. 1 at 4 cannot be regarded as a good law after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmappa v. Balawa K. T. Chaydi Laxmappa v. Balawa K. T. Chaydi Laxmappa v. Balawa K. T. Chaydi , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3497.