http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KOTHI SATYANARAYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GALLA SITHAYYA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1986

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  353            1987 SCR  (1) 359  1986 SCC  (4) 760        JT 1986   904  1986 SCALE  (2)858

ACT:     Hindu Succession Act 1956, s. 14--Life estate created in favour of widow by Settlement Deed--When can be  transformed into full ownership.

HEADNOTE:     Under  a deed of settlement dated August 18,  1937,  the respondent’s father settled certain properties on the  widow of  his  son  with life interest and upon  her  death  those properties were to revert to the Settlor or his heirs. After the  widow’s  death, the respondent claimed  the  properties under the aforesaid deed of settlement. However, the  appel- lant, brother of the widow set up title thereto under a Will executed by the widow on May 14, 1964.     The question that arose for consideration in the  courts below  was whether the life-estate created in favour of  the widow  under the Settlement Deed had been  transformed  into full  ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu  Succession Act  of  1956 and all the three courts held that  the  fife- estate  carved  out under the 1937 Settlement  did  not  get transformed  into title in favour of the widow and  she  did not  acquire  any alienable interest in  the  properties  to bequeath in favour of her brother. Dismissing the appeal by the appellant,     HELD:  1.  Subs.2 of s. 14 of the Hindu  Succession  Act 1956 is an exception to subs. 1 thereof and if the situation is covered by subs. 2, transformation provided for in  subs. 1 would not take place. [360F]     The  settlement deed in the instant case, is an  instru- ment  contemplated under subs.2 and admittedly it created  a restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore subs.  1 of s. 14 would not be attracted. [360G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 1972     From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1971 of,the Andhra Pradesh nigh Court in L.P.A. No. 48 of 1969 A.S. Nambiar, G.N. Rao and Attar Singh for the Appellant. 360

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

G.S. Ramaiah, and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH  MISRA, J. This appeal by the defendant is  by Special Leave and challenge is to the decision of a division bench  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters  Patent appeal.     Plaintiff asked for a decree for possession after  evic- tion  of the defendants and claimed mesne profits both  past and  future. Plaintiff and Veeraraju happened to be sons  of Ramamurty.  The two brothers had amicably partitioned  their properties  in 1909. Veeraraju died in 1927  leaving  behind his widow. As Ramamurty sold certain properties from  Veera- raju’s share in 1928, the widow raised dispute and mediators brought  about  a settlement leading to the execution  of  a Deed  of Settlement dated August 18, 1937, whereunder  Rama- murty  settled  certain properties on the  widow  with  life interest and upon her death, those properties were to revert to  Ramamurty  or his heirs. After the  widow’s  death,  the plaintiff who is son of Ramamurty claimed the properties but defendant No. 1 who is the brother of the widow set up title thereto under a Will dated May 14, 1962 of the widow.     The  main question that arose for consideration  in  the courts  below was whether the life-estate created in  favour of  Veeraraju’s  widow under the Settlement  Deed  had  been transformed  into full ownership under section 14(1) of  the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. All the three courts have held that  the life estate carved out under the  1937  settlement did  not get transformed into title in favour of  the  widow and  she  did  not acquire any  alienable  interest  in  the properties to bequeath in favour of her brother.     The only question which has been canvassed at the  hear- ing is whether in the facts of the ease, sub-section (1)  or sub-section  (2) of section 14 of the Act is applicable.  It is  not  disputed that sub-section (2) of section 14  is  an exception to sub-section (1) thereof and if the situation is covered by sub-section (2), the transformation provided  for in sub-section (1) would not take place.     The Settlement Deed is an instrument contemplated  under sub-section  (2)  and  admittedly it  created  a  restricted estate in favour of the widow. Therefore, sub-section (1) of section  14  would not be attracted. The submission  of  the appellant’s learned counsel that the Settlement deed brought the  properties  covered  by it in exchange or  in  lieu  of properties unauthorisedly alienated by Ramamurty and as  the widow had full title in the alienated 361 property,  title must be held to have accrued in  favour  of the widow in the properties covered by the settlement cannot be accepted. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this  Court. M.L.A.                                                Appeal dismissed. 362