Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vajja Mangamma vs J. Annapoornammadied Per Lr R2 on 30 April, 2024
APHC010352992000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 2282/2000
Between:
Vajja Mangamma and others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
J.Annapoornamma died Per L.R. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J.Venkata Subbarao
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. A VENKATESH
2. L J VEERA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 6206/K VIJAY CHOWDARY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:-
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 24.07.2000, in O.S. No.207 of 1988 passed 2 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.
2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 2 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff with separate possession or in the alternative for declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.207 of 1988, are as under:
i) The plaintiff and the first defendant are sisters. One Kommineni Venkata Rao is their brother and they are the children of Kommineni Venkaiah. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant.
The first defendant was married in the year 1963. The plaintiff remained unmarried and was depended on her father Venkaiah. While so, the said Venkaiah executed a gift deed dated 07.01.1963 in favour of the plaintiff conveying item No.2 of the plaint schedule property towards her maintenance and delivered possession of the same to her on the same day for life time and the vested interest shall go to the defendants 2 and 3. Late Venkaiah also executed another gift deed on the same day in favour of the first defendant conveying item No.1 of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. Venkata Rao, the brother of the plaintiff and the first defendant found missing for some time and ultimately died on 17.09.1966.
3 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and the first defendant was living in her husband's house and about 7 or 8 years ago, the first defendant constructed a house in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and living therein. The plaintiff also filed a suit in O.S.No.577 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Guntur for permanent injunction against the husband of the first defendant and her sons. The said suit was in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.
ii) The plaintiff claims that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of late Venkaiah that fell towards his share in partition between him and his son Venkata Rao, accordingly, the plaintiff and the first defendant are equally entitled for the estate of late Venkaiah and Venkata Rao. As the first defendant did not cooperate for amicable partition, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for partition, alternatively for declaration of her title to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.
5. The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:
The suit is barred by principle of res judicata in view of the decision in O.S.No.577 of 1965. The plaintiff categorically asserted in that suit that she obtained life interest to the said property under the gift deed and she is only entitled to life interest. Both the gifts executed by Venkaiah in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant were accepted and acted upon. As a matter of fact, prior to the gift deeds executed by Venkaiah, he purchased 400 square yards of site in Chandramoulinagar with his own money and obtained sale deed in the name of the plaintiff.
4 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000
6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff became absolute owner of item
No.2 under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act?
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession prayed for?
(v) To what relief?
7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked.
8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the Suit vide its judgment, dated 24.07.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/ defendants in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.
9. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/defendants, none for respondent.
10. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the trial Court failed to observe that the recitals in Ex.B5 gift deed said to have been executed by late Venkaiah goes to show that the said property was conveyed by way of life interest only out of love and affection but not in recognition of any pre-exist right and the trial Court came to wrong 5 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 conclusion and the suit is decreed in part by declaring that the plaintiff alone is entitled the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. He would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.
11. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made by the appellants before this court, the following points would arise for determination:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled item No.2 of the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference in respect of item No.2 of plaint schedule property?
12. Point Nos.1 and 2:
The plaintiff in the suit claimed the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property into 2 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff or in alternative for declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.
13. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that the suit claim in respect of the partition of the 6 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 plaint schedule property is dismissed and further ordered that the plaintiff alone is entitled item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and the defendants are also restrained, by granting permanent injunction, from ever interfering into the possession of the plaintiff. No cross objections or no appeal is filed by the plaintiff for dismissal of the partition relief. Therefore, the present appeal is confined with regard to the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property only.
14. The case of the plaintiff is that her father had given the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under a registered gift deed towards her maintenance and the defendants are not having any right in the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff in the suit claimed the relief of declaration of title in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, therefore, the entire burden shifted on the plaintiff to prove her title in the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.
15. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The contents of chief examination of PW1 is nothing but the averments in the plaint. She admits in cross examination that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is being let out by her and she further admits that she filed a suit in O.S.No.577 of 1965 on the file of District Munsif Court, Guntur against the defendants 2 and 3 and husband of first defendant and others for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering into the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property herein and the suit was decreed on 25.03.1969 and in the said judgment it was held that she is entitled to enjoy the said property during her life time and she did not prefer any appeal against the said decree and judgment. In cross examination, she further admits that her mother predeceased even before her father was not seen and her 7 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 father had gifted his half share in the property to his mother Subbamma and the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was settled by her father under a gift deed in favour of Mangamma.
16. PW2-K.Narayanarao, who is none other than the own brother of Kommineni Venkaiah, deposed in his evidence that himself and his sons sold the property bearing door No.5-91-45 at Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur to the plaintiff for a valid sale consideration. In cross examination he admits that his brother Venkaiah executed 2 gift deeds on the same day, one in favour of plaintiff and another in favour of the first defendant and the said Venkaiah executed the said gift deed in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for life time and vested remainder rights were given to the defendants 2 and 3. The own admissions of the PW1 and PW2 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is staying in another house and she let out item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the tenants. As stated supra, the present appeal is confined with regard to the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property only. As per the own admissions of the plaintiff, she is staying in another house and item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is being let out by her. As per the own admissions of PW2, who is none other than the own brother of the father of the plaintiff, he sold a house site to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1960 under original of Ex.B2. The plaintiff was having husband. In her evidence PW1 stated that her husband name was Venkataramaiah. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she is a destitute. It was contended by the appellants that the plaintiff was having husband and son. The learned trial Judge came to conclusion that the suit schedule property is not an ancestral property of parties. No appeal is filed against the said finding. Therefore, it is absolute property of the father of the plaintiff.
8 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000
17. Ex.A1 goes to show that the father of the plaintiff settled item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under a registered gift settlement deed dated 07.01.1963 by giving limited rights to the plaintiff and vested remainder rights to the defendants 2 and 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole plaintiff died, even though her legal representative is added to the case proceedings, but he did not prosecute the appeal.
18. The case of the appellants/ defendants 2 and 3 is that limited right only was given to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed dated 07.01.1963 by their grant father Kommineni Venkaiah and vested remainder rights were given to them. The same is not at all disputed by the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is more than 50 years old document. Ex.A1 is a registered gift settlement deed. It also supports the same. It is also not in dispute that even though the plaintiff claimed relief of partition of the plaint schedule property that aspect was negatived by the Court below and the same was not challenged by the appellants or plaintiff. The said finding is ended with finality. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and her legal representative was also added in this appeal. The said legal representative of the plaintiff failed to prosecute the appeal.
19. It is strongly contended by the plaintiff that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was given to her by her father towards maintenance and she got absolute rights in the said property. The plaintiff herein is not a destitute and she was having husband and she let out the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the tenants. More over PW2 own witness of the plaintiff admits that he sold a house site under Ex.B2, under a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1960, to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the plaintiff was having 9 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 husband and son. There was a clear admission by PW1 in her evidence in cross examination itself that she let out the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the tenants. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act is applicable to the facts of the present case and only limited interest was given to the plaintiff by her father and vested remainder rights were given to his grand children i.e., defendants 2 and 3 herein. Here, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the limited interest holder i.e., plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal.
20. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Shivdev Kaur (D) by L.Rs. vs. R.S.Grewal1, had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held as follows:
"... ... ..., the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that if a Hindu female has been given only a "life interest", through Will or gift or any other document referred to in Section 14 of the Act, 1956, the said rights would not crystalised into the absolute ownership as interpreting the provisions to the effect that she would acquire absolute ownership/title into the property by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, the provisions of Sections 14(2) and 30 of the Act, 1956 would become otiose.
Section 14(2) carves out an exception to rule provided in sub- section (1) thereof, which clearly provides that if a property has been acquired by a Hindu female by a Will or gift, giving her only a "life interest", it would remain the same even after commencement of the Act, 1956 and such a Hindu female cannot acquire absolute title."1
AIR 2013 SC 1620 10 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.
21. In the case of Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike2, the apex Court held as follows:
"When he thus validly disposes of his property by providing for a limited estate to his heir, the wife, the wife or widow has to take it as the estate falls. This restriction on her right so provided, is really respected by the Act. It provides in Section 14(2) of the Act, that in such a case, the widow is bound by the limitation on her right and she cannot claim any higher right by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. In other words, conferment of a limited estate which is otherwise valid in law is reinforced by this Act by the introduction of Section 14(2) of the Act and excluding the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, even if that provision is held to be attracted in the case of a succession under the Act. ... ... ..."
In the case on hand, there was a specific recital in Ex.A1 that limited rights were only given to the plaintiff by her father i.e., settlor Kommineni Venkaiah under Ex.A1 registered gift settlement deed which was registered a way back in the year 1963 itself i.e., more than 50 years old document. The settlor is no more and his wife predeceased him, the plaintiff also died during the pendency of the appeal. In the case on hand, Kommineni Venkaiah validly dispossessed of his property, item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, by providing limited estate to his daughter i.e., plaintiff and vested remainder rights to the defendants 2 and 3. The restriction of her right so provided, if really respected by the Act 1956, it provides Section 14(2) of the Act 1956, that in such a case, the plaintiff is 2 (2006) 8 SCC 75 11 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 bound by limitation of her right and she cannot claim any higher right by invoking under Section 14(1) of the Act 1956. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the settlor had given limited rights to the plaintiff and vested remainder rights, under Ex.A1, to the defendants 2 and 3 in the year 1963 itself. Furthermore, there were no indications in Ex.A1 that the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property herein had been given to Hindu female in recognition of or in lieu of her right to maintenance. The case on hand fell within the ambit of Sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Act and that a limited right granted to Hindu female cannot be enlarged into absolute estate.
22. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that only limited interest was given to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 in the year 1963 and the vested remainder rights were given to the defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A1. So the same are not enlarged. So, Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to the present facts of the case. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and the defendants 2 and 3 are having rights in the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under registered gift settlement deed dated 07.01.1963. Since the plaintiff is not entitled the main relief of declaration, she is not at all entitled the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the points are answered.
23. Resultantly, the appeal suit is allowed, consequently the suit in O.S.No.207 of 1988 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
12 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 30.04.2024 sj 13 VGKRJ AS.2282 of 2000 02 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.2282 OF 2000 Date: 30.04.2024 sj