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]
