The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of HMJ Aniruddha Bose and HMJ Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a widow who remarried lacked rights in the property of first husband, and the said rights could not be conveyed to another.
Brief Facts
The matter pertains to a suit for partition instituted in 1985 involving uterine brothers belonging to Malayakamala Sect. A woman got married twice, her first husband died in 1910 and they had a son. Thereafter, the woman got married to another man and had another son.
The son claimed his share of the property from his mother who was described as the owner of the property in the original plaint, against the defendants who were successors in interests of her first husband.
The High Court restored the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The High Court decision impugned in the instant matter reflected that the mortgage deed itself recorded about possession of property not given to the mortgagee.
Observations of the Court
Apex Court cautioned that even if the subsistence of a deed was proved, the title of person executing the same does not stand confirmed automatically. It further added that “If a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over the same, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. The Court can examine the title in the event any party to the proceeding sets up this defence…If right, title or interest in certain property is sought conveyed by a person by an instrument who herself does not possess any such form of entitlement on the subject being conveyed, even with a subsisting deed of conveyance on such property, the grantee on her successors-in-interest will not have legal right to enforce the right the latter may have derived from such an instrument.”
Decision of the Court
The Court allowed the instant appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the High Court and thereby confirmed the First Appellate Court’s decision.
Case Title: Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki And Ors
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8616 of 2017
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 221 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR; Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv.; Mr. K.P Rajagopal, Adv.; Mr. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Adv.; Mr. Firdouse C P, Adv.; Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR; Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Karthik S.D, Adv.; Mr. John Mathew, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
