AFA No. 79 of 1994 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ss. 14, 14(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Hence the only point arises for consideration is whether on thedeath of Raman, Kallyani's possession was in her own right for maintenanceso as to ratify the said possession into into one of absolute ownership byvirtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.4. The…
Judgment
P.R. RAMAN & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =A.F.A. NO. 79 OF 1994 = = = = = = = = = = = = =DATED THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009.J U D G M E N TRaman, J.Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition claiming half share infive items of plaint A schedule immovable properties and B schedulemovable property. The suit was eventually dismissed against which anappeal was preferred. This Court allowed the appeal in part and decreed thesuit for partition giving 1/2 share in Item No.3 and 1/4 share in Item No.5of A schedule immovables, however, dismissed the appeal confirming thedecree of the trial court as respect Item Nos. 1,2 and 4 as also plaint Bschedule movables. It is against the said decision that the present appeal ispreferred.
As respect items 1,2 and 4 of plaint A schedule immovables, thoseitems were acquired by the grand father of the plaintiff and defendant byname Kunjan Ezhuthachan as per Ext.B1 dated 8.11.1922. KunjanEzhuthachan died prior to 1932 leaving his wife Narayani and son Raman. Raman died in 1123 M.E. (corresponding to 1948) leaving Narayani, hismother, Kalyani, his wife, and his minor two children. The plaintiff and AFA 79/19942defendant are the children of Raman. The contention is that after the deathof Raman, Kalyani was in possession of the property and so by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she became the absolute owner ofthe property. This contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge.
Hence the only point arises for consideration is whether on thedeath of Raman, Kallyani's possession was in her own right for maintenanceso as to ratify the said possession into into one of absolute ownership byvirtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.4. The learned Single Judge entered the following finding in Para 5of the judgment: "The parties had no case before the courtbelow nor before this Court that Kalyani Ammahad obtained any vested right over thecoparcenary property at any time prior to herdeath. "5. Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that Kalyani had no right over plaint Schedule Item Nos. 1,2 and 4 except theright of maintenance. On the aforesaid finding, it can be seen that on thedeath of Raman, these items of property devolved on the parties bysurvivorship and the plaintiff daughter who was given away in marriagewas not entitled for partition.
In order to attract Section 14 of the Hindu AFA 79/19943Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of theproperty but she must have a pre-existing right which is a sine qua non forconferment of a full ownership under Section 14 of the Act. A mere rightfor maintenance without actual acquisition in any manner is not sufficientto attract Section 14 of the Act. In the absence of anything to show that thewidow had got possession of share in the joint family property in lieu ofmaintenance or in arrears of maintenance or that there was a partition of theproperty and that in such partition, she had been given the property, thewidow had no right at all which could fructify into full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, as held by the Apex Court in thedecision in Ram Vishal v. Jagan Nath (2004(9) SCC 302). In this case, at the time of death of Raman, both the plaintiff and defendant wereminors.
The property would devolve on the defendant by survivorship andhe being a minor, the mother happened to be put in possession for and onbehalf of the minor and not in any way on her own right. Before the deathof Raman, it is not the case of the plaintiff that this property was allotted toher towards maintenance After the death of Raman, the question ofallotting this property for maintenance also does not arise. In the absenceof any case for the party that the property was allotted to her towardsmaintenance or in lieu of maintenance and that she was in any way in AFA 79/19944possession of the property as a limited owner in exercise of a right to bemaintained, the question of her becoming a full owner by virtue of Section14 will not arise. In such circumstances, we find no errors of law in the judgmentunder appeal. We agree with the view expressed by the learned SingleJudge. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.P.R. RAMAN, JUDGEK. SURENDRAMOHAN, JUDGE.KNC/- AFA 79/19945P.R. RAMAN &K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.A.F.A. 79 OF 1994J U D G M E N T24.8.2009.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — ss. 14, 14(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Aug 2009. The bench was K SURENDRA MOHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.