1
"REPORTABLE"
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8864 OF 2010
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 5301 OF 2007)
Sri Ramakrishna Mutt
Rep. By Manager ... Appellant
Versus
M. Maheswaran & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A unanimous verdict of the three Courts below
dismissing the suit filed by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt
(appellant herein) is in challenge in this appeal.
3. The conspectus of the facts would be necessary
before we approach further. One Kannabiran Pillai had
two wives. The name of his second wife was Kumudammal
with whom he had got married before the advent of The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such, she was a
legitimate wife. She had no children. The respondents
herein are the children, or as the case may be, the
2
legal heirs of the children of the first wife of
Kannabiran Pillai. Kannabiran died on 31.12.1956,
while Kumudammal died on 18.3.1989. During his
lifetime, Kannabiran had executed settlement deeds
being Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4, wherein, he had
created a life interest in favour of Kumudammal. The
initial settlement deed was dated 20.10.1938. He
created a supplementary deed on 4.3.1939 and a
rectification deed dated 23.7.1943. Kumudammal
remained in possession of the properties and enjoyed
the same during her lifetime, inasmuch as, it was
Kumudammal who used to recover the rents. Thus, she
was in constructive possession of the property. In
those settlement deeds, it was provided that after the
demise of Kumudammal, the property would go in favour
of the appellant/plaintiff Sri Ramakrishna Mutt.
4. A civil suit, therefore, came to be filed against
the respondents herein by the appellant/plaintiff for
claiming the property and it was pleaded that since
Kumudammal had only the life interest, after her death,
the property would revert back to the
appellant/plaintiff Sri Ramakrishna Mutt in terms of
the settlement deeds.
3
5. This claim was contested by the defendants
including the tenants and the children from the first
wife of Kannabiran on the ground that the property
could not have gone back as per the settlement deeds,
as Kumudammal had become full owner of the property on
account of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act,
1956. Issues were framed and as has been stated
earlier, all the three Courts below held that
Kumudammal had become absolute owner of the property
under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as she
was in possession of those properties on the date when
the Hindu Succession Act came on the anvil. The Hindu
Succession Act came on the anvil on 17.6.1956. It is
this unanimous verdict which is in challenge in the
present appeal.
6. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant had taken us through the
judgments of the Courts below, as also the record. The
mainstay of his contention was that Kumudammal was not
in possession of the suit property on the date when the
Hindu Succession Act came into force because the
possession was that of Kannabiran Pillai himself, since
on that date he was alive. The learned Senior Counsel
4
pointed out that the date of his death i.e. 31.12.1956
was subsequent to the date on which the Hindu
Succession Act came into force and, therefore, it
should be presumed that it was only Kannabiran Pillai
who was in possession of the property on the date when
the said Act came into force. The learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that in order that the possession
of a Hindu widow to be ripened into the full rights of
ownership, it is essential that the Hindu widow having
limited right or life interest should be in possession
of the properties on the date on which the Hindu
Succession Act came into force i.e. 17.6.1956. For his
contentions, Shri Sanghi relied on the decision of this
Court in Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors.
[2006 (8) SCC 75].
7. Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on
behalf of the respondents, urged that the law laid down
in the decision in Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara Sahib
Narike & Ors. (cited supra) will not apply to the facts
herein. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that
all the three Courts below have held, as a matter of
fact, that on the day when the Hindu Succession Act
came into force, it was Kumudammal who was in
5
possession of the property and not Kannabiran Pillai.
The learned Senior Counsel further argued that there is
a specific recital in the three settlement deeds and
more particularly, on the settlement deed dated
4.3.1939 that Kumudammal was put in possession of the
property on the date when the said settlement deed, to
put in more rightly, the supplementary deed, came into
existence on 4.3.1939. He, therefore, pointed out that
at least from that date, Kumudammal was in constructive
possession of the properties. Once Kumudammal is held
to be in possession or constructive possession of the
property, the law laid in the decision in V. Tulasamma
& Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. [1977 (3) SCC 99]
would apply. It will, therefore, be our endeavour to
see as to whether Kumudammal was in possession or
constructive possession of the property on 17.6.1956,
the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into
force.
8. Apart from the fact that there is a unanimous
finding of all the three Courts below on this point,
the issue would be clinched by the recitals in the said
settlement deeds.
6
9. The first such settlement deed is date 20.10.1938.
Under that deed, the property is described in Schedules
A and B and the relevant recital are as under:-
“1. This instrument witnesseth that in consideration
of the premises above said, the settlor doth hereby
convey transfer and assign in favour of the Mission,
the properties described in the Schedules A and B
hereto subject to the life interest created hereinafter
below and the Mission shall be entitled to enjoy
subject as aforesaid the properties.
2. The settlor shall be entitled during the period of
his life to enjoy the income from the properties set
out in Schedules A and B hereto. The settlor’s second
wife Kumudammal after the settlor’s lifetime be
entitled to utilize for herself the income only from
the properties described in Schedule A hereto and shall
have no right to the properties set out in Schedule B
hereto on the death of the settlor. On the death of
the settlor, the Mission shall take possession of the
property set out in Schedule B hereto and enjoy the
same with full powers of ownership after the lifetime
of both the settlor and his second wife aforesaid. The
Mission shall take possession of the property set out
in Schedule A hereto and enjoy the same with full right
of ownership.
3. Settlor hereof declares that a part from the right
to enjoy the income for himself and his second wife
aforesaid the settlor shall have no right whatever to
7
deal with the properties settled on the Mission
hereunder as from this date.”
It seems that a supplementary deed was executed by
Kannabiran Pillai, which is described as Document No.
413 of 1939. This deed was executed on 4.3.1939. This
supplementary deed mentions the earlier settlement deed
dated 20.10.1938 and the fact of its registration in
respect of the properties in the Schedules thereto. It
then goes on to say that:-
“whereas without prejudice to the rights of the
Ramakrishna Mission detailed therein, I have decided to
confer an immediate interest in the Schedule mentioned
properties in favour of my second wife Kumudammal at
her request and with a view to domestic peace and
whereas no other provision has been made for the
maintenance and convenient enjoyment of my second wife
the said Kumudammal, but suitable provisions have
already been made for my first wife and children and
whereas these properties are all myself acquisitions
and are at my absolute disposal. I hereby declare
create and convey present interest in favour of the
said Kumudammal my second wife that she shall
immediately possess and enjoy the Schedule mentioned
properties during her lifetime and utilize the rents
and profits for her own benefit without left on
hindrance but without any power of alienation and after
her lifetime the said properties shall pass to the
Ramakrishna Mission in continuance with the settlement
8
deed aforesaid. During my lifetime I shall manage the
said properties for her benefit and after my lifetime
she will be at liberty to appoint any agent to manage
the said properties for her benefit with a view to the
proper realization of rents and profits and keeping the
premises in good conditions.” (Emphasis supplied).
It seems that on 23.7.1943, Kannabiran Pillai
executed a rectification deed to rectify the settlement
deed dated 20.10.1938, wherein, the only rectification
effected was that in place of “Ramakrishna Mission”,
the words “Ramakrishna Mutt, Mylapore” were inserted.
This was necessitated as the settlor Kannabiran Pillai
was under the impression earlier that there was no
difference between Ramakrishna Mutt and Ramakrishna
Mission; however, he had realized that the work of
Mission does not cover the Puja and Seva of Sri Rama
Krishna Paramahansa and the Mission was not a religious
body, though the workers of the same are Sanyasis of
the Ramakrishna Mutt.
10. These three deeds are the documents relied upon by
the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff,
therefore, cannot travel away from these three
settlement deeds. The position thus becomes clear that
Kumudammal was given the possession of this property
9
and was also given the right to enjoy the property by
collecting rents of the same right from 4.3.1939 even
during the lifetime of her husband Kannabiran Pillai
who was only managing the properties on her behalf.
Thus, these documents will clearly go to prove the
possession of Kumudammal right from 4.3.1939 and,
therefore, the subsequent death of her husband
Kannabiran on 31.12.1956 would be of no consequence.
In short, Kumudammal was in possession of the property
in pursuance of her pre-existing right of maintenance
on 17.6.1956, the date on which the Hindu Succession
Act came into force. That would clearly clinch the
issue in favour of the original defendants, whose case
is that thereby, Kumudammal’s right of life interest
ripened into full ownership.
11. Shri Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on
behalf of the appellant, in his usual persuasive style,
pointed out that the law laid down in V. Tulasamma &
Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. (cited supra) has
been further explained in Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara
Sahib Narike & Ors. (cited supra), where this Court has
held to apply the law laid down in V. Tulasamma & Ors.
Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. (cited supra), it must be
10
shown that the concerned widow or the lady, as the case
may be, should be in possession of the property on the
date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force
without going into the controversy as to whether the
rule in V. Tulasamma & Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by
L.Rs. (cited supra) depends upon such possession on the
date when the said Act came into force. It is clear in
this case that Kumudammal was in such possession of the
property on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came
into force.
12. Shri Sanghi then tried to urge that at least
during the lifetime of Kannabiran Pillai upto to
31.12.1956, the actual possession of Kumudammal could
not be presumed and, therefore, we should hold that the
possession was that of Kannabiran Pillai himself. Even
this contention is not available to the appellant in
this particular case as even the constructive
possession of a female Hindu has been held to be
sufficient for the application of Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, in catena of decisions.
Reference may be made to the decision rendered by this
Court in Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami Vs.
11
Setra Veeravva [AIR 1959 SC 577], where this Court
expressed as under:-
“The opening words in “property possessed by a female
Hindu” obviously mean that to come within the purview
of the section the property must be in possession of
the female concerned at the date of the commencement of
the Act. They clearly contemplate the female’s
possession when the Act came into force. That
possession might have been either actual or
constructive or in any form recognized by law, but
unless the female Hindu, whose limited estate in the
disputed property is claimed to have been transformed
into absolute estate under this particular section, was
at least in such possession, taking the word
“possession” in its widest connotation, when the Act
came into force, the section would not apply.”
(Emphasis supplied).
Similar view was expressed in Dindayal Vs. Rajaram
[1970 (1) SCC 786], where the constructive possession
of a female Hindu was recognized for the purposes of
application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession
Act. Therefore, even this contention fails.
13. Shri Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel then pointed
out that no such contention was raised by the
defendants in their Written Statement. In fact, that
is also not correct. From the very beginning, the
stand of the defendants was that under no
circumstances, could the property go back to
Ramakrishna Mutt in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act. This is apart from the fact that the
12
Courts below and more particularly, the first appellate
Court and the High Court had gone on the question of
applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession
Act and held that the Section applied to the facts of
the case. In fact, the first appellate Court has in
details discussed as to why Section 14(2) will not
apply and further the application of rule laid down in
V. Tulasamma & Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. (cited
supra).
14. In view of all this, we do not find any merits in
the appeal and dismiss the same confirming the orders
passed by the Courts below. However, under the
circumstances, there shall be no orders as to the costs.
……………………….J.
[V.S. Sirpurkar]
………………………..J.
[Cyriac Joseph]
New Delhi;
October 8, 2010.
13