Madras High Court
R.Govindarajan vs C.Krishnamoorthy on 14 December, 2021
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7663 of 2021
1.R.Govindarajan
2.Viswanathan ... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
1.C.Krishnamoorthy
2.R.Seethalakshmi
3.R.Mahalakshmi ... Respondents/Respondents/plaintiffs
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2019 passed
in A.S.No.18 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27.01.2015
passed in O.S.No.30 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thiruvaiyaru.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.30 of
2011, by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru and in A.S.No.18 of
2016, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, are
being challenged in the present Second Appeal.
2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, have instituted a suit in
O.S.No.30 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of
declaration and for recovery of possession, wherein, the present
appellants have been shown as the defendants.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that originally the suit property was
owned by one K.S.Rengaswamy Iyyangar, the elder brother of the
plaintiffs' great grandfather K.S.Swamy Iyyangar. The said
K.S.Rengaswamy Iyyangar had only two daughters, namely Padmasani
and Ruckmani and he had no male issues. The said K.S.Rengaswamy
Iyyangar in a sound and disposing state of mind had executed his last
and Will and testament on 20.11.1961 and registered the same at the
Sub-Registrar's Office at Thirukkattupalli. As per the terms of the said
Will, the under mentioned suit property has to be enjoyed by the first
daughter Padmasani for life and after her life, it has to be succeeded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
the father of the plaintiff K.S.Rengaraj and his legal heirs. The said
K.S.Rengaswamy Iyyangar died about 20 years back and the above
said Will of K.S.Rengaswamy Iyyangar came into force and as per the
terms of the said Will, Padmasani was enjoying the suit property during
her life time as a life estate holder. The said Padmasani died in the year
2005. Hence, as per the terms of the last Will, the plaintiffs have
succeeded to the suit property as the legal heirs of K.S.Rengaraj
Iyyangar. The defendants have taken a sale deed from the abovesaid
Padmasani Ammal on 17.02.2003 with respect to the suit property and
have taken possession of the suit property from the said Padmasani
Ammal. In the Will, dated 20.11.1961, the said Padmasani was given
only a life estate over the suit property and she had no right of
alienation over the suit property. These plaintiffs, being the only legal
heirs of their father K.S.Rengarajan, had succeeded to the suit
property as per the terms of the abovesaid Will.
4. The sale deed, dated 17.03.2003 was executed by Padmasani
in favour of the defendants is not valid and beyond the lifetime of
Padmasani, the defendants have no right to continue in possession of
the suit property. After the death of Padmasani, the plaintiffs
approached the defendants and explained them that the sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
executed by Padmasani is not valid beyond the lifetime of the said
Padmasani and requested them to surrender possession. But, the
defendants did not give proper reply. Hence, the first plaintiff issued a
legal notice on 29.06.2007, calling upon the defendants to surrender
possession of the suit property. After receiving the notice, the
defendants issued a false reply through their counsel. It is false to
contend that the limited estate given to Padmasani riped into a full
estate by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession act. As
per the provisions of Section 14(2), Section 14(1) is not applicable to
the bequeaths under the Will. Hence, the defendants have no right to
continue in possession of the said suit property as per the terms of the
Will, dated 20.01.1961. After the issue of reply notice, there was a
Mediation in the Village in the presence of the Village elders. The
plaintiffs explained them that the defendants have no right to continue
in possession of the suit property. At the instance of the Village
Panchayathars, the defendants agreed to vacate the suit property and
hand over possession within one year and the Panchayathars also
advised the plaintiffs to wait for one year. Accordingly, the plaintiffs
have waited for an amicable settlement. But, even after the lapse of
the time given by the Panchayathars, the defendants have not come
forward to keep up their promise. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
5. The defendants filed a written statement and admitted that
Rengaswamy Iyyangar was the owner of the suit property and he had
two daughters, namely Padmasini and Rukmani and had no male
issues. It is also admitted that the said Rengaswamy Iyyangar had
executed a Will on 20.11.1961, in which, the suit property was shown
in the 'C' schedule. The said Padmasini and Rukmani had no issues
during the life time of Rengaswamy Iyyangar. Therefore, the said
Rengaswamy Iyyangar, in order to protect the suit property, gave only
life estate to his daughter Padmasini. After the death of Rengaswamy
Iyyangar, Padmasini was enjoying the suit property and had executed a
registered sale deed in favour of the defendants on 17.02.2003. From
the date of execution of the sale deed, the defendants are residing in
the said place with the permission of Padmasini. The plaintiffs never
succeeded the suit property as the only legal heirs of K.S.Rengasway
Iyyangar. In fact, two daughters are there for Rengaswamy Iyyangar,
but they have not been added as party to the proceedings. Therefore,
the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. After the death of
Padmasini, the plaintiffs never approached the defendants seeking for
surrender of possession. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on
29.06.2007 and the same was replied. The said Rengaswamy Iyyangar
with an intention to give economic support and shelter to her daughter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
Padmasini, executed the Will in favour of her and some others,
therefore, the life estate enlarged into full estate by operation of
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the sale deed
executed by Padmasini for consideration is valid under law. The said
Padmasini, as widowed daughter of Rengaswamy Iyyangar, had
pre-existing right over the suit property and therefore, Section 14(2) is
not applicable in this case.
6. After the issue of reply notice, there was no Mediation in the
Village, as alleged in the plaint. It is also false to allege that the
defendants agreed to hand over the possession of the suit property
within one year at the instance of the Village Panchayathars. The
plaintiffs filed the suit four years, after the reply notice given by the
defendants. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and there was no
cause of action for the suit and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the
relief of declaration and recovery of possession as sought for by them
and they are also not entitled to past or future profits and prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first
plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1
and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10 were marked.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side, the
trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the
oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit.
9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the defendants, as appellants have filed an Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.18 of 2016. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides
and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, had dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
10. Challenging the said concurrent Judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been
preferred at the instance of the defendants, as appellants.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants
would submit that the courts below had failed to note that the plaintiffs
have claimed the right over the property only as per the Will executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
by K.S.Rengaswamy Iyanger in the year 1961 and the said
K.S.Rengaswamy Iyanger had bequeathed the property to his daughter
Padmasini for lifetime and after her lifetime, it has to be succeeded to
the father of the plaintiffs viz., K.S.Rengaraj and his legal heirs. The
Courts below failed to note of the fact that the father of the original
plaintiff K.S.Rengaraj knew that the property was sold by the legatee
Padmasini and therefore, he has not claimed any right over the
property and he has not questioned the sale by Padmasini. The Courts
below have failed to note that the legatee Padmasini originally has
granted life estate by her father which was enlarged into a full estate
as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and no right flows to
the said K.S.Rengaraj or his legal heirs and prayed for allowing the
Second Appeal.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs
submitted that the Courts below, after analysing the documents
available on record, has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs, in which, no interference is called for and thus
prayed for dismissing the Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
counsel for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
14. It is the contention of the appellants/defendants that the
Courts below had failed to consider the object and intention of the
executor of Ex.A.4 and also pointed out the transaction based on the
sale deed, dated 17.02.2003, which was marked as Ex.A.1. It is the
contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that the suit property was
acquired by the plaintiffs' mother through the Will, dated 20.11.1961.
15. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen
that there is no dispute or have any other suspicioun over the Will. In
the said circumstances, in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section
14(1) and (2) clearly distinguished the difference between the kinds of
acquiring the properties. To support the defendants case, there is no
whisper about the livelihood of the plaintiffs with minor children. On a
perusal of Ex.A.4-Will, dated 20.11.1961, it is seen that the same has
not been disputed by both the parties. The executor's intention was
when 'A' schedule property was purchased by him and both the
daughters have to enjoy the same till their life time and they have to
utilise the income from the said property equally and further they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
to pay kist and revenue tax from the said amount and if at all they
have any male issue to be born, they are entitled for the same equally
and if there is no male issues for them, the said brother one K.S.Sami
Iyyangar's son K.S.Rengarajan is entitled to inherit the same.
16. From the above said Will, it could be seen that the intention
of the father of Padmasini Ammal is that only for life time they are
entitled to enjoy 'A' schedule property and if they are not having any
male issues, the said property has to devolve on one K.S.Rengarajan
ie, the brother of brother's son, who is entitled to inherit the same.
17. In the mean time, the said Padmasini Ammal alleged to have
executed a sale deed, dated 17.02.2003, which was marked as Ex.A.1
and in the sale deed, it is found that the schedule properties belonged
to her father Rengaswamy Iyyangar and he has executed a Will in her
favour and after his death, the said Padmasini Ammal was in
possession and enjoyment of the property and she was willing to sell
the same. But Ex.A.4-Will, clearly disclosed that the object and
intention of the executor that they can enjoy the property for a life
time and if they do not have any male issues, the property shall
devolve on his brothers's son, has been made clear. That being the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
case, when the object is very clear that whether Section 14(2) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will apply to the facts of the present case
or not has to be decided.
18. Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, reads as
follows:-
"14.Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute
property - (1)
...........
(2) Nothing contained in sub-Section (1) shall
apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under
a Will or any other instrument or under a decree or
order of a civil Court or under an award where the
terms of the gift, Will or other instrument or the
decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in
such property."
19.The sale deed, dated 17.02.2003 was executed by Padmasini
Ammal only based on the Will executed by K.S.Rengasamy. The Will
confers only the life estate and no right over the property as an
absolute owner. The Will itself would prove that the father of the said
Padmasini Ammal had an intention that his daughters would enjoy the
property in the life time and in case, if they have male issues, they would
inherit the same and in case, if they have no male issues, the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
property will devolve on his brother's son K.S.Rengarajan. The
subsequent sale deed alleged to have been executed by Padmasini
Ammal is not permissible, as it is against the original intention of the
executor. The sale deed executed by Padmasini Ammal is invalid one,
as she does not have any absolute right to transfer such property to
others. That being the case, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate
Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the alleged claim made
by the defendants does not hold good and dismissed the same.
20. When the executor's original intention was very clear that the
said Padmasini Ammal has got no right over the property absolutely
and it is only a limited interest ie., only till her life time, she can utilise
the same and enjoy the income alone and definitely the alleged sale
deed executed in favour the defendants is not valid in the eye of law
and further Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act states that any
property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or
after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner
thereof and not as a limited owner, but clause (2) states that nothing
contained in sub-Section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by
way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument or under a decree or
order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
Will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a
restricted estate in such property. Accordingly, a Hindu female has
been given only a life interest through a Will or gift or any other
document, the said rights would not stand or prescribes an absolute
ownership as she has only a restricted life time interest and
accordingly, the life interest would remain, as the same even after then
commencement of the Act, 1956 and the Hindu daughter cannot
acquire absolute title when the same has been made clear by the
executor. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
well considered Judgments and Decrees rendered by the trial Court as
well as the first Appellate Court.
21. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
view that no substantial questions of law has been made out by the
appellants/defendants to interfere with the well considered judgment
and decree rendered by the Courts below and accordingly, the Second
Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Court,
Thanjavur.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Thiruvaiyaru.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.576 of 2021
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
