GANGAMMA ETC.versusG. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. ETC.

                                    [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1167


           '                        GANGAMMA ETC.
                                             v.
                                                                                    A
_.,
    '                      G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. ETC.
                          (Civil Appeal Nos. 4126-4127 of 2009)

                                        JULY 6, "2009
                                                                                    B
                  (S. 8. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
          ~
                    Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14(1) - Partition suit-
               Of the property recorded in the name of Hindu female - Plea
               that the property was in fact joint family      property - Held:     c
               Plaintiff not entitled to partition in such property- By virtue of
               s. 14(1), the defendant was the full owner of the property -
    -·         Partition.

                    Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (mother and daughter D
               respectively) filed a partition suit against appellant No. 1
               and others. Appellant No. 1 was the mother-in-law of
               respondent No. 1. Plaintiffs claimed 1/3 share in the suit
               property. Plaintiff contended therein that although two of
               the items in the Schedule property were in the name of
                                                                            E
               appellant No. 1, actually they were ancestral property
               belonging to the joint family. Trial Court decreed the suit
         ..,   holding the plaintiffs entitled to 116 share in the schedule
    ..         property. High Court in first appeal and cross objection
               held that though two of the schedule property were
               recorded in the name of appellant No.1, they in fact were F
               joint family properties. Hence the present appeal.

                   Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                   HELD: As the Schedule properties at item Nos. 1 and
1                                                                        G
         >.    2 are recorded in the name of the appellant No. 1 in the
    r          absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the
               appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu
               succession Act, is the full o~ner of those properties. In
                                                      )
                                                 I,

                                             1167.                                  H
     1168        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.


A   the facts of the instant case, it has to be accepted that
    those properties are not joint properties, but the appellant
    is the sole owner of those properties. Section 14(1) would
  . apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name
    of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner
B of those properties. Therefore the order of the High Court
    cannot be upheld. [Paras 14, 19 and 20] (1171-G-H; 1172-
    A-B; 1173-B-D]
      Eramma vs. Veerupana and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1879;
  Punithavalli Ammal vs. Minor Rama/ingam and Anr. AIR
C 1970 SC 1730; Badri Pershad vs. Smt. Kanso Devi AIR 1970
  SC 1963; Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and Ors. vs.



D
  Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 1977 SC
  1944, relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:
                                                                             -
         AIR 1966 SC 1879            Relied on.           Para 15      "1·

         AIR 1970 SC 1730            Relied on~           Para 16
         AIR 1970 SC 1963            Relied on.           Para 17
E        AIR 1977 SC 1944            Relied on.           Para 18
         C.IVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
,. · 4126-4127 of 2009.
        ·From the Judgment & Order dated 1.12.2006 of the High
·F   Court of Karnataka at Bangalore jn RFA 617/2004 C/w RFA
     CROSS 47 of 2006.
         G.V. Chandrashekhar (for Anjana Chandrashekhar) for the
     Appellants.
G        S.N. Bhat for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. The subject matter of challenge before this Court is the
H
      GANGAMMA ETC. v. G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. 1169
            ETC. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

      judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by a A
      Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at
      Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004 and in the cross
      objection 4712006 filed under order 41, rule 22 against the
      judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit
      No.6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore s
      City.

           3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i) Smt.
      Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii) by G. Hemlata
      who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff
      was the only child of the plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and C
      natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No.2. The
      plaintiffs are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court.

            4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in
_,,   suit properties and also claiming separate possession by D
      metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other incidental
      reliefs.

           5. The first defendant in the suit is the mother-in-law of the
      plaintiff No.1 and the defen~fants 2, 3 & 4 are the daughters of E
      the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 is the son of the
      defendant No.1. Defendants 6 to 14 are tenants in the suit
      properties.

           6. The plaint case is Sri. Ganganna, the father-in-law of the
      plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind his wife, three       F
      daughters and two sons. The genological table of the family is
      as under:-


                                                                           G




                                                                           H
    1170         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.


A                        Ganganna (Died in 1973)
                                       !
                            Gangamma (Pet. 1)

    Srinivas    Yashoda     Padma Manju Kumar S. Moorthy
8   (son)(Died (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter)    (Son)
    in 1984)   (D-2) (R-3) (D-3)(P-2) (D-4 (P-3) D-5 (P-4)
         I                                                               +
    Nagarathna (wife)
    (Plf. No.1) (R-1)
c        I
    Hemalatha (daughter)
    (Plf. No.2) (R-2)
       7. The suit properties consist of both agricultural lands and
  urban properties and the plaint case is they are ancestral
D properties belonging to the joint family. The further plaint case
  is though some of the properties stand in the name of first
  defendant, they were bought benami in her name by the late
  Ganganna out of the income from agricultural lands and the
  income of the first plaintiffs husband who was working as an
E accountant in a private firm and dr~wing salary. He also had a
  leather business and had earning from running a taxi. Thus he
  was contributing seven to eight thousand every month to the
  family and out of such income the suit properties were
  purchased. The first defendant being         ahousewife had no
F income to purchase properties. However, latter on relationship
  between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband and defendant No.1
  became strained and the plaintiff No.1 and her husband had
  to le~ve the ancestral house. The plaint case is that out of the
  properties those at item Nos. 1 to 4 are the joint family
  properties.
G
         8. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the
    plaint case was denied excepting the relationship between the
    parties. The other defendants adopted the stand of the first
    defendant.
H
          GANGAMMA ETC. v. G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS.1171
                ETC. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

     '        9. The Trial Court however decreed the suit for partition in
         part and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share in the
                                                                                A

         schedule property and to separate possession by metes and
         bounds. They are also entitled to an enquiry into mesne profits
         under order 20, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.
                                                                                B
              10. Challenging the said judgment, the present appellants
         filed a Regular First App~al being RFA 617/2004 and the
         plaintiff - respondent filed a cross objection, as mentioned
         above.

               11. In the First Appeal the High Court found that no c
         evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that she had
         any independent sources of income. It has also come in
         evidence that at the time of death of the husband of the
         appellant only G. Srinivasan was 16 years old and the other
~·
         children of the appellant herein were minors and they had no D
         income.
             12. The High Court found that evidence was adduced to
         show that the husband of the plaintiff had substantial income
         and he owned an ambassador car. In view of this evidence,
                                                                                E
         High Court hel9 that properties at items 1 & 2 are joint family
         properties .
..
               13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
         without any evidence the High Court came to a finding that the
         husband qt the plaintiff No.1 had substantial income. From the F
         list of the, documentary evidence produced before the Trial
         Court nothing appears on record to indicate that there was any
         document evidencing the income of the husband of the plaintiff
         No.1. Therefore the High Court fell into an error by holding that
~.
         though the properties at item Nos.1 & 2 are recorded in the G
         name of the appellants, they are joint family properties.

              14. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter
         referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the issue. As the
         properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded in the name of the
                                                                                H
    1172         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

                                                                         1'
A appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in this
  case, the appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said
  Act is the full owner of those properties. In the facts of this case
  discussed above it has to be accepted that those properties
  are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of
B those   properties.

       15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the said
  Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive manner
  since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri Dhana in respect
  of properties possessed by female Hindu. In Eramma vs.
c Veerupana and others - AIR 1966 SC 1879, Justice
  Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that Section 14(1) of
  the Act contemplates that a female Hindu, who in the absence
  of the said provision would have been a limited owner of the
  property, will now become full owner by virtue of the said section.
D Such female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make
                                                                         'f
  the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the
  heirs of the last male holder.

       16. Again in the case of Punithavalli Ammal vs. Minor
E Ramalingam and another-AIR 1970 SC 1730, a three-Judge
  Bench of this Court reiterated the position that the said Act has
  overriding effect and confers full ownership on Hjnda ·female
  and made it very clear that rights conferred under Section 14(1)        ~


  to a Hindu female are not restricted or limited by any rule of
F Hindu law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra)
  the said section makes a clear departure from all texts of Hindu
  laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be used for
  circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1) of the said
  Act.
G        17. In Badri Pershad vs. Smt. Kanso Devi - Al R 1970 SC
    1963, the learned Judges held that the word 'acqldired' in sub-       ·"'
    Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to be given the
    widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7).

H       18. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others vs.
 GANGAMMA ETC. v. G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS.1173
       ETC. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. - AIR 1977 SC A
1944, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court held that sub-
section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its amplitude and
covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu.
Regardless of whether such property was possessed by a
female Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was B
subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full
owner of the.property.

     19. In view of such consistent views taken by this Court on
the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that Section 14(1) of C
the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand
in the name of the appellant and the appellant would be the full
owner of those properties.

    20. Therefore the order of the High Court cannot be upheld
and is set aside. The order of the Learned Trial Judge is D
affirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
There is no order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                 Appeal partly allowed.