BHOOMIREDDY CHENNA REDDY AND ANR.versusBHOOSPALLI PEDDA VERRAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

A              BHOOMIREDDY CHENNA REDDY AND ANR.
                                            v.
     BHOOSPALLI PEDDA VERRAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

                                NOVEMBER 28, 1996.

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]


          Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sectio11 14(1).

          Husba11d bequeathed prope1ties to his wife u11der a Will in 1947-Right
C grantM to wife to enjoy prope1ties for life-time-Held, after 1956 Act came
    into force, she became absolute owner as her limited right of enjoying the
    prope1ties dwing her lifetime for her mai>1te11a11ce ripe11ed iltto an absolute
    estate u11der sectio11 14(1) of the Act-Her limited right e11larged i11to absolute
    right-She became an absolute owner of property.

D          C. Masilama11i Mudaliar & Ors. v. Idol of Shli Swaminathanswami
    171i1ttkoil & Anr., (1996] 8 SCC 525, relied on.

          Specific Relief Act, 1963 : Section 34.

          Pe1petual i11jw1ctio11-Prope1ties bequeathed to wife by husba11d under
E a will executed i11 1947-Right given to wife to e11joy properties during life
  time-Remai11der vested in respo11dents who were sons of sister of wife-Wife
  held the properties duri11g her lifetime and died i11 1965C-After demise of wife
  responde11ts came i11 possessio11 of properties which were mutated in their
  names-!11 1951 the appellants who were so11s of the brother of husband
p purchased some of the properties, the subject matter of the Will from the
  respondents-Appellants started inteifering with possession and e11joyment of
  properties-Suit filed by responde11ts for a pe1petual inju11ction-Suit decreed
  by Trial Court a11d affimied by First Appellate Court-Appellants' appeal
  dismissed by High Court-Appeal preferred before Supreme Cowt-Held
  when the respo11dents have been in possession and got their names mutated
G in assertion of their right, right from 1947, may be it was open to them to
  contend that they remained in possession in assertion of their own right even
  tu the knowledge of the appellants and the appellants had acquiesced to
  it-Purchase of the properties from them by the appellants themselves may
  lend assurance to that assertion-Therefore, it would be open to them to raise
H that plea, had the appellants asserted their right-But 110 such issues were
                                         332
             BHOOMIREDDY CHENNAREODYv. BHOOSPALIPEDDA VERRAPPA                333
     raised as no such plea was taken-Under these circumstances the injunction A
     was rightly granted against the appellants.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 566 of
     1981.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.79 of the Andhra Pradesh            B
     High Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1977.

             K. Madhava Reddy and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants.

             A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
                                                                                     c
             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            The appellants are sons of the brother of Bhoomireddy Pedda Chen-
     naiah. The respondents are the sons of the sister of Laxmamma, widow of
     Pedda Chennaiah. Pedda Chennaiah during his life time had bequeathed
     all his properties to his wife Laxmamma by his registered Will dated May        D
     12, 1947 with right to enjoy the property with vested reminder in the
     respondents with absolute right and he died on May 25, 1947. Laxmamma
     held the property <juring her life time and she died on October 21, 1965.
     When the appellants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment
•    of the plaint sc~edule properties, the respondents filed O.S. No. 187/69 in     E
     the Court of District Munsif at Anantapur for a perpetual injunction. The
     trial Court decreed it. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed
     the same. In the Second Appeal No. 437/77, by judgment and decree dated
     February 21, 1979 the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh dismissed
     the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
                                                                                     F
             Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the
      appellants, is right in his contention that Laxamamma having inherited the
      properties under the Will executed by her husband Pedda Chennaiah, as
      a limited owner, after Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, became
      an absolute owner as her limited right of enjoying the property during her
      life time for her maintenance ripened into' an absolute estate under Section   G
      14(1) of that Act and that she died as full owner of the said properties.
      The legal position in this behalf is settled by this Court in C. Masilamani
    · Mudaliar& Ors. v. Idol of Shri Swaminathanswami Thirukoil &Anr., [1996]
      8 sec 525, wherein it has been held that the properties given to the wife
      by the husband under his Will for maintenance must be constr1;1ed to have      H
    334                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A bee!) acquired by the wife, in view of her pre-existing right to maintenance.       ,
    When properties are thus bequeathed for their enjoyment in life, it cannot
    be said to be a right acquired for the first time under the Will but it has
    to be considered a--' a reflection of the pre-existing right. After 1956, her
    limited right got enlarged into absolute right by operation of Section 14(1)
    of the said Act. She will have to be treated as having become an absolute
B
    owner. However, the real question which arises for consideration is :
    whether an injunction could have been granted in favour of the respondents
    in view of the facts of this case? It is seen that even during the life time of
    Laxmamma, after the demise of Pedda Chennaiah, the respondents came
    in possession of the property and were enjoying the same right from 1947.
C   The properties were mutated in their name. It is also an admitted fact that
    in 1951, the appellants themselves had purchased some of the propertie..>,
    the subject matter of the Will, from the respondents. In view of these facts,
    the question arises whether an injunction can be granted against the
    appellants? The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have concurrent-
D   ly found as a fact thus :

            "The lands were transferred in the name of the respondents and
            pattas also were granted to them and they were in possession and
            enjoyment of the property since the death of their testator.
            Voluminous evidence clearly demonstrated the fact. In view of the
E           admission made by the appellants that the re;poudents were in
            possession of the part of the properties purchased from the respon-
            dents, it would clearly indicate that the respondents remain in
            possession of the property right from the date of the death of the
            testator. Under these circumstances, the injunction was rightly
            granted against the appellants."
F
         Shri K. Madhava Reddy has contended that no injunction can be
  granted against a true owner. As a proposition of law, it is indisputable.
  But the question is: whether the appellants have become owners of the
  property? Several imponderable things would arise until that declaration is
G given to them. It is seen that when the respondents have been in possession
  and got their names mutated in assertion of their right, right from 1947,
  may be it was open to them to contend that they remained in possession
  in assertion of their own right even to the knowledge of the appellants and
  the appellants had acquiesced to it. The admitted purchase of the proper-
H ties from them by the appellants themselves may lend assurance to that
            BHOOMIREDDY CHENNAREDDY.: BHOOSPAUPE'DDA VERRAPPA                335

       assertion. Therefore, it would be open to them to raise that plea, had the   A
       appellants asserted their right. But it is a fact that no such issues were
       raised as no such plea was taken. Under these circumstances, we think that
       the injunction, due to the above documentary evidence and admitted facts,
       was rightly granted against the appellants.

             The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.                         B
       T .N.A.                                                Appeal dismissed.




·-~·