“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  

1

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.

2

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  

3

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  

4

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.   

5

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  

6

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  

7

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  

8

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  

9

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.  

10

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  

11

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.

12

13