Article By BL bellielogu@gmail.com
(Civil Appeal No.4126-4127 of 2009
Gangamma etc. – Versus –G. Nagarathnamma & Ors. etc.
Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Date of judgment- July 06, 2009)
Facts of the case.
Shri. Ganganna owned substantial properties. He died. He was survived by the following six persons.
Smt.Gangamma – wife of Shri. Ganganna
Smt. Yashoda, Smt.Padma, Smt. Manju Kumar – daughters of Shri. Ganganna & Smt.Gangamma
Shri S.Moorhty and Shri Srinivas – sons of Shri. Ganganna & Smt.Gangamma
Smt. Nagarathnama is the wife of Shri Srinivas. They had one daughter Hemalatha.
Rival contentions
The partition suit is for immovable properties, both agricultural lands and urban properties. The suit also includes properties those in the name of Smt. Gangmma. The plea is that Shri Ganganna purchased the properties in the name of Smt. Gangmma from income from the agricultural properties and also from the money given by Shri Srinivas, who was working as an accountant in a private firm and drawing salary. He also had a leather business and had earning from running a taxi and contributed for the purchase of the said properties which are in the name of Smt. Gangamma.
Smt. Gangamma being a house wife had no independent source of income to purchase the properties.
At one stage the relationship between Smt. Gangamma and Shri Srinivas became strained. Therefore Smt. Nagarathnama and her husband Shri Srinivas had to leave the ancestral house.
Therefore suit properties though in the name of Smt. Gangamma are joint family properties having purchased by income from ancestral properties and contribution of individuals.
Decree of trial court and appellate court
The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition in part and held that Smt. Nagarathnama and Ms.Hemalatha are entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule property and to separate possession by metes and bounds. They are also entitled to an enquiry into share in the profits earned from the properties in the name of Smt. Gangamma.
In the First Appeal the High Court found that no evidence was adduced by Smt. Gangamma to show that she had any independent sources of income. It has also come in evidence that at the time of death of the Shri Ganganna, only G. Srinivas was 16 years old and the other children of Smt. Gangamma were minors and they had no income
Therefore the High Court held that though the properties are recorded in the name of Smt. Gangamma, they are joint family properties.
The decision of High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Decision of Supreme Court.
It was held in another decision of Supreme Court 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 subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full owner of the property.
In view of such consistent views taken by Supreme Court on the interpretation of Section 14, it was held that Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name of Smt. Gangamma and Smt. Gangamma would be the full owner of those properties.
Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 is given below.
- 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 and not as a limited owner.
Explanation: In this sub section, property’ includes both movable and immovable property acquired by female Hindu by inheritance or device, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this act
- 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.