REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4126-4127 OF 2009  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.23606-23607 OF 2007)

Gangamma etc. .....Appellant(s)

- Versus -

G. Nagarathnamma & Ors.  etc. ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The  subject  matter  of  challenge  before  this  

Court is the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006  

passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of  

Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004  

and in the cross objection 47/2006 filed under order 41,  

rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04  

1

passed in Original Suit No.6169/92 by the XX Additional  

City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed  

by i) Smt. Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and  

ii) by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing  

of the suit in 1992.  Plaintiff was the only child of the  

plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and natural guardian  

and she represented the plaintiff No.2.  The plaintiffs  

are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court.

4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd  

share  in  suit  properties  and  also  claiming  separate  

possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and  

other incidental reliefs.

5. The first defendant in the suit is the mother-

in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants 2, 3 & 4  

are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and the defendant  

No.5 is the son of the defendant No.1.  Defendants 6 to  

14 are tenants in the suit properties.

2

6. The plaint case is Sri. Ganganna, the father-in-

law of the plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind  

his wife, three daughters and two sons.  The genological  

table of the family is as under:-

Ganganna (Died in 1973) !

Gangamma (Pet. 1) ____________________________________________________

   !    !   ! !  ! Srinivas Yashoda Padma Manju Kumar   S. Moorthy (son)(Died   (Daughter)   (Daughter)  (Daughter)      (Son) in 1984)    (D-2) (R-3)  (D-3)(P-2)  (D-4 (P-3)  D-5 (P-4)    ! Nagarathna (wife) (Plf. No.1) (R-1)    ! Hemalatha (daughter)  (Plf. No.2) (R-2)

7. The suit properties consist of both agricultural  

lands and urban properties and the plaint case is they  

are ancestral properties belonging to the joint family.  

The further plaint case is though some of the properties  

stand in the name of first defendant, they were bought  

benami in her name by the late Ganganna out of the income  

from  agricultural  lands  and  the  income  of  the  first  

plaintiff's husband who was working as an accountant in a  

private firm and drawing salary.  He also had a leather  

3

business and had earning from running a taxi.  Thus he  

was contributing seven to eight thousand every month to  

the family and out of such income the suit properties  

were purchased.  The first defendant being a housewife  

had no income to purchase properties. However, latter on  

relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband  

and defendant No.1 became strained and the plaintiff No.1  

and her husband had to leave the ancestral house.  The  

plaint case is that out of the properties those at item  

Nos. 1 to 4 are the joint family properties.

8. In  the  written  statement  filed  by  the  first  

defendant,  the  plaint  case  was  denied  excepting  the  

relationship between the parties.  The other defendants  

adopted the stand of the first defendant.

9. The  Trial  Court  however  decreed  the  suit  for  

partition  in  part  and  held  that  the  plaintiffs  are  

entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule property and to  

separate possession by metes and bounds.  They are also  

4

entitled to an enquiry into mesne profits under order 20,  

rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.

10. Challenging  the  said  judgment,  the  present  

appellants  filed  a  Regular  First  Appeal  being  RFA  

617/2004 and the plaintiff - respondent filed a cross  

objection, as mentioned above.

11. In the First Appeal the High Court found that no  

evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that she  

had any independent sources of income.  It has also come  

in evidence that at the time of death of the husband of  

the appellant only G. Srinivasan was 16 years old and the  

other children of the appellant herein were minors and  

they had no income.

12. The High Court found that evidence was adduced  

to show that the husband of the plaintiff had substantial  

income and he owned an ambassador car.  In view of this  

evidence, High Court held that properties at items 1 & 2  

are joint family properties.

5

13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended  

that  without  any  evidence  the  High  Court  came  to  a  

finding  that  the  husband  of  the  plaintiff  No.1  had  

substantial income.  From the list of the documentary  

evidence produced before the Trial Court nothing appears  

on  record  to  indicate  that  there  was  any  document  

evidencing the income of the husband of the plaintiff  

No.1.  Therefore the High Court fell into an error by  

holding that though the properties at item Nos.1 & 2 are  

recorded in the name of the appellants, they are joint  

family properties.

14. Section  14(1)  of  the  Hindu  Succession  Act  

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the  

issue.  As the properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded  

in  the name  of the  appellant, in  the absence  of any  

evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by  

operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full  

owner of those properties.  In the facts of this case  

discussed  above  it  has  to  be  accepted  that  those  

6

properties are not joint properties but the appellant is  

the sole owner of those properties.

15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the  

said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive  

manner since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri  

Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu.  

In  Eramma Vs.  Veerupana and others - AIR 1966 SC 1879,  Justice  Ramaswami  speaking  for  the  Court  held  that  

Section  14(1)  of  the  Act  contemplates  that  a  female  

Hindu, who in the absence of the said provision would  

have  been  a  limited  owner  of  the  property,  will  now  

become full owner by virtue of the said section.  Such  

female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make  

the  estate  heritable  by  their  own  heirs  and  not  

revertible to the heirs of the last male holder.   

16. Again  in  the  case  of  Punithavalli  Ammal Vs.  Minor Ramalingam and another – AIR 1970 SC 1730, a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the position that  

the  said  Act  has  overriding  effect  and  confers  full  

ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that  

7

rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female  

are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law.  

In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra) the  said section makes a clear departure from all texts of  

Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be  

used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1)  

of the said Act.   

17. In Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi – AIR 1970  SC 1963, the learned Judges held that the word 'acquired'  

in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to  

be given the widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7).   

18. In  Vaddeboyina  Tulasamma  and  others Vs.  Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. - AIR 1977 SC  1944, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court held that  

sub-Section  (1)  of  Section  14  is  very  large  in  its  

amplitude  and  covers  every  kind  of  acquisition  of  

property by a female Hindu.  Regardless of whether such  

property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of  

commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or  

possessed, she would be the full owner of the property.  

8

19. In view of such consistent views taken by this  

Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that  

Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of  

the properties which stand in the name of the appellant  

and  the  appellant  would  be  the  full  owner  of  those  

properties.   

20. Therefore the order of the High Court cannot be  

upheld and is set aside.  The order of the Learned Trial  

Judge is affirmed.  The appeal is allowed to the extent  

indicated above.  There is no order as to costs.

..................J. (S.B. SINHA)

..................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) July 06, 2009

9