KOTHISATYANARAYANA A v. GALLA SITHAYYA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: O. Chinnappa Reddy
Ranganath Misra
Judgment Date: 1986-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the life estate created under the 1937 settlement is governed by section 14(2) as a restricted estate, so section 14(1) transformation does not apply; each party to bear its own costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KOTHISATYANARAYANA A

Respondents

Galla Sithayya
and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. S. Nambiar
• G. N. Rao
• Attar Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• G. S. Ramaiah
• B. Parthasarthi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Under a Deed of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow of his son with life interest; upon the widow’s death, the properties were to revert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the widow’s death, the plaintiff (the son of Ramamurty) claimed the properties, while the widow’s brother asserted title through a Will dated May 14, 1962. The crucial issue was whether the life estate created in the widow by the 1937 settlement could be transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The three courts below held that the life estate carved out under the settlement did not transform into title in favour of the widow, and she did not acquire an alienable interest to bequeath to her brother. The appellant contended that the settlement deed brought the properties within section 14(1)’s transformation or, alternatively, that the widow’s full title to alienated property could be treated as accruing to her in the properties covered by the settlement. The Supreme Court held that the settlement deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 14, creating a restricted estate in favour of the widow; consequently, sub-section (1) does not apply. The appeal is dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. The decision clarifies the interpretation of section 14(2) as an exception to the transformation principle in cases of restricted life estates.

Provisions of Law Cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s.14(1)Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s.14(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants argued that the life estate created by the 1937 settlement deed should be capable of transformation into full ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, thereby enabling alienation rights and potential bequeathment.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the settlement deed falls under section 14(2), creating a restricted life estate in favour of the widow; hence subsection (1) transformation does not occur and the widow’s estate cannot vest in the brother or in her alienable rights.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

### _y_ _I_ KOTHISATYANARAYANA A _v._ - GALLA SITHAYYA & OTHERS NOVEMBER 21, 1986 [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ) B _Hindu Succession Act 1956,_ _s._ _14-Life estate created infavour of widow_ _.by Settlement_ _Deed-When can be transformed into full ownership._ Under a deed of settlement dated August 18, 1937, the respondent's ## father settled certain properties on the widow of his son With life interest and c upon her death those properties were to revert to the Settlor or his heirs. After the widow's death, the respondent claimed the properties under the aforesaid deed of settlement. However, the appellant, brother of the widow set up title thereto under a Will executed by the widow on May 14, 1964. The question that arose for consideration in the courts below. was D whether the life-estate created in favour of ihe widow under the Settlement Deed. had been transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and all the three courts held that the life-estate carved out under the 1937 Settlement' did not get ln!nsformed into title in favour of the widow and she did not acquire any allienable interest in the properties to bequeath in favour of her brother. E Dlsmis.sing the apJieal by the ap~llant, HELD: 1. Sub"5.2 of s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is an exception to su!H. l thereof and if the situation is covered by suH. 2, the transformation provided for in su!H. l would not take place. [360F], F The settlement deed -in the instant case, is an inStrument contemplated under su!H: 2 and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore suH. l of s.14 would not be attracted. [360G] - CIVIL APPELtATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 1972 G From the Judiinent and Order dated 4.8.1971 of the Audhra P,radesh High Court in CP .A. No. 48 of l 969 A.S. Nambiar, G.N. Rao and Attar Singh for the Appellant. 359 H A B 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R. G.S. Ramaiah, and **B.** Parthasarthi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . **RAN GANA TH MISRA,** **J.** This appeal by the defendant is by Special Leave and challenge is to the decision of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters Patent appeal. Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after eviction of the defendants and claimed mesne profits both past and future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju happened to be sons of Ramamurty. The two brothers had amicably C partitioned their properties in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from Veeraraju's share in 1928, the widow raised dispute and mediators brought about a settlement leading to the execution of a Deed of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, whereunder Ramamurty settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and upon her death, those properties were to reyert to Ramamurty or his heirs. After the D widow's death, the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties but defendant No. I who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a Will dated May 14, 1962,of the widow. The main question that' arose for consideration in the courts below was whether the life-estate created in favour of Veeraraju's widow under the E Settlement Deed had been transformed into full ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three courts have held thatthe lifeestate carved out under the 1937 settlement did not get transformed into title in favour of the widow and she did not acquire any alienable interest in the properties to bequeath in favo\lr of her brother. **F** G The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated under sub-section (2) and admittedly it created a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore, sub-section ( 1) of section 14 would not be .'lllracted. The submission ·of the appellant's learned counsel that the Settlement deed brought the The only question which has beec. canvassed at the hearing is whether in the facts of the case, sub-section (I) or st.b-section (2) of section 14 of the Act is applicable. It is not disputed that sub-section (2) of section 14 is an exception to sub-section (I) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided for in sub-seC':ion (I) would not take place. # _); ' properties covered by it in exchange or in lieu of properties unauthorisedly . alienated by Ramamuriy and as the widow had full title in the alienated **H** KOTH! SATYANARAYANA _v._ GALLA SITHAYYA [MISRA, J.] 36 [1 ] property, title must be held to have accrued in favour of the widow in the **A** properties covered by the settlement cannot be accepted. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties. are directed to bear their own costs in this Court. **B** **M.L.A.** Appeal dismissed.