LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Whether under Mysore Hindu Law women's Rights Act /Karanataka Hindu law women's rights Act - if a women acquired property on the death of her husband - can be considered as aboslute owner and whether she can gift the same to her one of the daugther and whether on the death of donee , this property falls on her husband or revert back on the legal heirs of Donor that is another duagther under sec.15 [[2][a] of Hindu Succession Act ? Mysore Hindu Law Women�s Rights Act, 1933 [subsequently known as �Karnataka Hindu Law Women�s Rights Act, 1933� by way of amendment by Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973)] - under Section 10 the suit property that came to her on the death of her husband - was Stridhana property and by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act the aforesaid person i.e. she became the absolute owner of such property with unrestricted powers of enjoyment and disposition. - If that is so, she was undoubtedly competent to execute the gift deeds in question dated 9 th April, 1954 by virtue of which Muddamma became the absolute owner of half of that property. On her death (i.e. Muddamma�s death) i.e. on 7 th May, 1997 her husband Rangappa @ Bodappa would become the absolute owner and would, therefore, be competent to transfer the property by way of sale deed in favour of the appellant - The provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applies - In the present case, Muddamma had not inherited any property but what she had acquired is an absolute right to the suit property by way of the gift deed dated 9 th April, 1954. On her death, the property would, therefore, not vest in terms of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but would go to her husband who would be competent to transfer the same in favour of the present appellant. Trial court decree is restored - High court order is setaside - appeal allowed.


Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8076-8077 OF 2018
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(CIVIL) NO.24201-24202 OF 2014]
RANGAPPA  ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THIPPESWAMY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. One   Rangamma   and   Odo   Nagappa   had
two   daughters   Nagamma   and   Muddamma.
Nagamma,   who   is   represented   by   her   legal
representatives  and  her  son  Thippeswamy  are
the   respondents   in   the   present   appeals
whereas     one   Sri   Rangappa   s/o   Kurilingappa
who   purchased   the   suit   property   from
Rangappa   @   Bodappa,   the   husband   of   the

2
other   daughter   Muddamma   is   the   appellant
herein.
3. The   purchaser   of   the   suit   property
i.e.   the   appellant   herein   instituted
Original   Suit   No.163   of   2002   seeking   a
declaration   of     title   and   permanent
injunction.     The   respondents   herein   also
instituted   Original   Suit   No.8   of   2004
seeking   a   similar   relief   of   declaration   of
title.
4. The   learned   trial   Court   decreed
Original   Suit   No.163   of   2002   filed   by   the
appellant   herein   and   dismissed   Original
Suit   No.8   of   2004   filed   by   the   respondents
herein.   The   First   Appellate   Court   affirmed
the said decrees.   The High Court in Second
Appeals   preferred   by   the   respondents   had
reversed the decree passed in Original Suit
No.163   of   2002   filed   by   the   appellant   and

3
decreed   the   Original   Suit   No.8   of   2004
filed by the respondents herein.   Hence the
present appeals.
5. The   point   in   issue   is   short   and
precise.   Whether   on   the   death   of   Odo
Nagappa   sometime   in   the   year   1950   his   wife
Rangamma   became   an   absolute   owner   of   the
property   to   be   competent   to   execute   two
gift   deeds   dated   9 th
  April,   1954   in   favour
of her two daughters Nagamma and Muddamma.
6. We   have   been   taken   through   the
provisions   of   Section   4   and   10   of   the
Mysore   Hindu   Law   Women�s   Rights   Act,   1933
[subsequently  known  as  �Karnataka  Hindu  Law
Women�s   Rights   Act,   1933�   by   way   of
amendment   by   Mysore   State   (Alteration   of
Name)   Act,   1973   (31   of   1973)].   Reading   the
aforesaid   provisions   conjointly   we   find
that   under   Section   10   the   suit   property

4
that   came   to   Rangamma   on   the   death   of   her
husband   Odo   Nagappa   was   Stridhana   property
and by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act
the   aforesaid   person   i.e.   Rangamma   became
the   absolute   owner   of   such   property   with
unrestricted   powers   of   enjoyment   and
disposition.     If   that   is   so,   she   was
undoubtedly   competent   to   execute   the   gift
deeds   in   question   dated   9 th
  April,   1954   by
virtue   of   which   Muddamma   became   the
absolute   owner   of   half   of   that   property.
On   her   death   (i.e.   Muddamma�s   death)   i.e.
on   7 th
  May,   1997   her   husband   Rangappa   @
Bodappa would become the absolute owner and
would,   therefore,   be   competent   to   transfer
the   property   by   way   of   sale   deed   in   favour
of   the   appellant   -   Sri   Rangappa   s/o
Kurilingappa.
7. The   provisions   of   Section   15(2)(a)
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which has

5
been   invoked   by   the   High   Court   to   reverse
the   decree   in   question,   in   our   considered
view, was not at all applicable inasmuch as
Section   15(2)(a)   of   the   Hindu   Succession
Act, 1956 deals with the line of succession
in   case   of   property   inherited   by   a   female
Hindu.     In   the   present   case,   Muddamma   had
not inherited any property but what she had
acquired   is   an   absolute   right   to   the   suit
property   by   way   of   the   gift   deed   dated   9 th
April,   1954.     On   her   death,   the   property
would,   therefore,   not   vest   in   terms   of
Section   15(2)(a)   of   the   Hindu   Succession
Act,   1956   but   would   go   to   her   husband   who
would   be   competent   to   transfer   the   same   in
favour of the present appellant.
8. On the aforesaid basis, we find the
order   of   the   High   Court   to   be   flawed   and,
accordingly,   liable   to   be   set   aside   which
we   hereby   do.     The   decree   passed   by   the

6
learned   trial   Court   as   affirmed   by   the
First   Appellate   Court   is   restored.   The
appeals are accordingly allowed. 

....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
...................,J.
   ( NAVIN SINHA )
...................,J.
   ( VINEET SARAN )
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 07, 2018

7
ITEM NO.8               COURT NO.2               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S)   FOR   SPECIAL   LEAVE   TO   APPEAL   (C)     NO(S).     24201-
24202/2014
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED  20-12-2013
IN   RSA   NO.   25/2009   C/W   26/2009   PASSED   BY   THE   HIGH   COURT   OF
KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU)
RANGAPPA                                           PETITIONER(S)
                                VERSUS
THIPPESWAMY & ANR.                                 RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 07-08-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv.
Ms. Vijayalaxmi, Adv.
                     Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv.
Ms. Christi Jain, Adv.
Ms. Kanika, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv.
                     Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR
                 
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The   appeals   are   allowed   in   terms   of   the   signed
order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]


1
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
CIVILAPPEALNO(S).80768077OF2018
[ARISINGOUTOFSLP(C)NO.2420124202OF2014]
RANGAPPA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THIPPESWAMY&ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. In  the  order  dated  7 th  August,  2018  deciding  Civil  Appeal
Nos.8076 8077of 2018 arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil)No.
24201 24202  of  2014,  it  has  been  recorded,  while  answering  the
question  set out  in  para  5  of  the  order,  that  after  the  death  of  Odo
Nagappa the property became the absolute property of Rangamma by
virtue  of  Section  10  read  with  Section  11  of  the  Mysore  Hindu  Law
WomensRightsAct,1933.
2. The  aforesaid  conclusions,  on  suo moto  reconsideration  by
us,does not appear to be correct as Rangamma was not an absolute
but a limited owner as at the time of death of Odo Nagappa (husband
of  Rangamma)  two  daughters  i.e.  Nagamma  and  Muddamma  were
alive.

2
3. Theorderdated7 th August,2018 is accordingly corrected.
4. However,�the�above�correction�will not lead to any change in
the�eventual�conclusion�recorded�in�the�order �dated�7 th
� August,�2018
as  the  gift  deeds  by  Rangamma  were  infact  so  made  to  her  two
daughtersandthattoowaybackintheyear1954which�gifts�has�not
been � challenged � by � either � the � second � daughter � Muddamma � or � her
legal�heirs�at�any�point�of�time.�
5. The�order�dated�7 th
�August,�2018�is�accordingly�corrected�to
the�above�extent.
��������.,�J.
�[RANJAN�GOGOI]
��������.,�J.
�[NAVIN�SINHA]
��������.,�J.
�[VINEET�SARAN]
NEW�DELHI
AUGUST�21,��2018
2

3
ITEM NO.801               IN CHAMBERS               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  8076-8077/2018
RANGAPPA                                           APPELLANT(S)
                                VERSUS
THIPPESWAMY & ANR.                                 RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 21-08-2018 These appeals were taken up in Chambers today.
CORAM : 
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
The Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The   order   dated   7 th
  August,   2018   passed   in   Civil
Appeal   Nos.   8076-8077   of   2018   (@   SLP(C)   Nos.   24201-24202
of 2014) is corrected in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]