REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos.30004-30005 of 2008

GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS.        … PETITIONERS VS.

GADDAM RAMI REDDY & ANR.     … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. The suit properties, along with certain other  

properties, formed the joint family properties of  

one G. Pullareddy and his two sons, G. Pitchireddy  

and  Gaddam  Ramireddy.   The  said  properties  were

partitioned  in  1947  into  three  equal  shares  and  

were  separately  enjoyed  by  the  three  co-sharers  

thereafter according to such partition.  

2. On 21st December, 1952, G. Pullareddy executed  

and  registered  a  Deed  of  Gift  giving  a  limited  

right in his share of the properties to his wife,  

Gaddam  Sheshamma.   In  terms  of  the  Gift  Deed  

Sheshamma was given a limited right of enjoyment of  

the properties during her lifetime, without right  

of alienation, and the remainder was vested in G.  

Ramireddy. It was stipulated that after Sheshamma’s  

death,  the  properties  would  devolve  on  G.  

Ramireddy.

3. G. Pullareddy died in or about 1957.  At about  

the same time, Sheshamma is said to have executed a  

Deed of Relinquishment in respect of 1.89 acres in  

R.S. Nos.93/2 and 1/1 and also executed two sale  

deeds  in  favour  of  one  Mukkala  Chennareddi  and  

2

Vintha  Ramakotireddy  in  respect  of  some  of  the  

aforesaid  properties.  On  17th February,  1972,  

Sheshamma also executed and registered a Will in  

favour of her grandchildren through G. Pitchireddy,  

bequeathing the properties which were received by  

her through the Gift Deed dated 21st December, 1952,  

to them.  

4. Apparently,  in  view  of  all  the  aforesaid  

alienations by Sheshamma, G. Ramireddy filed O.S.  

No.17  of  1975  against  Sheshamma,  Mukkala  

Chennareddi  and  Vintha  Ramakotireddy  before  the  

District Munsif, Tituvur, for a declaration that  

the  sale  deeds  dated  31st January,  1967  and  16th  

July, 1974, executed by his mother, Sheshamma, in  

favour  of  Mukkala  Chennareddi  and  Vintha  

Ramakotireddy, who were made Defendant Nos.5 and 6  

in  the  suit,  did  not  affect  his  rights  in  the  

properties. He also prayed for permanent injunction  

3

against the said Defendants from interfering with  

his possession in the said properties.  The suit  

was contested by Sheshamma and Mukkala Chennareddi  

and was ultimately decreed on 31st January, 1979, in  

favour of G. Ramireddy, the Respondent No.1 herein,  

holding that the sale deeds executed by Sheshamma  

in  favour  of  the  Defendant  Nos.5  and  6  were  

invalid,  inasmuch  as,  Sheshamma  had  no  right  of  

alienation as she did not get an absolute right in  

the properties.  No appeal appears to have been  

preferred against the said judgment.

5. On 15th August, 1991, Sheshamma died and on 9th  

October, 1991, G. Ramireddy filed O.S. No.111 of  

1991, which is the present suit, in the Court of  

Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, for a direction upon the  

Defendants to put him in possession of the suit  

properties and also for payment of mesne profits.  

The Defendant No.2 duly filed his Written Statement  

4

and the same was adopted by Defendant Nos.1, 3 and  

4,  denying  the  claim  of  the  Plaintiffs  and  

asserting their independent right to the properties  

through their late father, G. Pitchireddy.  It was  

also the case of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 that they  

had perfected their rights in respect of Item Nos.4  

and 5 of the plaint schedule by way of adverse  

possession and that Sheshamma had a pre-existing  

right  of  maintenance  in  the  properties  of  G.  

Pullareddy and the life estate created under the  

Gift Deed dated 21st December, 1952, blossomed into  

an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu  

Succession Act, 1956.   Although, it was admitted  

that  the  rights  in  respect  of  the  properties  

covered under Item No.6 of the plaint schedule had  

become final in O.S. No.17 of 1975, it was at the  

same time submitted that the same could not operate  

as  res  judicata in  the  present  suit.   The  5th  

Defendant contested the suit claiming that he was  

5

in possession of 0.07 acres of land forming part of  

Item  No.6  of  the  plaint  schedule  properties  and  

that he had purchased the same through sale deed  

dated 16th July, 1974, executed by Sheshamma for use  

as a passage to reach his own land and that he had  

remained in continuous possession even after the  

judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1975.

6. The  Trial  Court  by  its  judgment  dated  30th  

July,  1997,  decreed  the  suit  and  held  that  the  

properties were gifted to G. Ramireddy and not to  

Sheshamma, who had only been given a life estate  

therein  without  any  link  with  her  maintenance  

during or after Pullareddy’s lifetime.  It was also  

held that the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1975, in  

which it was held that the limited estate under the  

Deed of Gift executed by G. Pitchireddy did not  

ripe into an absolute estate as far as Sheshamma  

6

was  concerned,  had  become  final  and  any  claim  

through her would be void.  

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Defendant  

Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the heirs of Defendant No.3,  

Gaddam Madhavareddy, who had died in the meantime,  

preferred an appeal, being A.S. No.1010 of 1997,  

before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground  

that the properties had been given to Sheshamma for  

life in lieu of her maintenance and that the same  

ripened into an absolute estate under Section 14(1)  

of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  It was also  

submitted that Section 14(2) of the said Act had no  

application  on  account  thereof  and  the  Will  

executed by Sheshamma was legal and valid.  It was  

further contended that the judgment and decree in  

O.S. No.17 of 1975 did not operate as res judicata  

since the Defendants had not been made parties to  

the suit and that only Item No.6 of the plaint  

7

schedule  properties  was  covered  by  the  earlier  

suit.

8. The Appeal against the sixth Defendant, who was  

made  the  third  respondent  in  the  appeal,  was  

dismissed for default on 18th October, 2001, and on  

the death of the third Defendant, who was the third  

Appellant, during the pendency of the appeal, his  

legal representatives were brought on record.  

9. During the pendency of the appeal, the High  

Court, by its order dated 23rd October, 2003, stayed  

the  execution  of  the  decree  and  permitted  

determination  of  mesne  profits  from  15.08.1991.  

Pursuant thereto, on an application filed by the  

plaintiff/Respondent No.1, G. Ramireddy, the Trial  

Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and on the  

basis of his report, the Trial Court determined the  

mesne  profits,  to  which  the  Respondent  No.1  was  

entitled, to be Rs.2,31,052/- for the period from  

8

15.08.1991  to  15.06.1999.   Since  the  matter  was  

pending  before  the  High  Court,  no  interest  was  

granted  on  the  said  amount.   An  appeal,  being  

A.S.No.2869 of 2004, was filed by the Petitioners  

herein  against  the  aforesaid  order  dated  23rd  

October,  2003.   Both  the  appeals,  i.e.,  A.S.No.  

1010/97 and A.S.No.2869/04, were heard together and  

were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28th  

April, 2008.  The High Court, while dismissing both  

the appeals on the ground of res judicata in view  

of  the  judgment  passed  earlier  in  O.S.No.17  of  

1975,  modified  the  cultivation  expenses  for  the  

first 5 years from 1991.   

10. The focus of the submissions made on behalf of  

the  Petitioners  was  on  the  question  whether  the  

limited estate given by G. Pullareddy to Sheshamma  

by the Deed of Gift dated 21st December, 1952, would  

be governed by the provisions of Sections 14(1) or  

9

14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  It was  

again  sought  to  be  re-emphasized  that  the  life  

estate created in favour of Sheshamma by the Deed  

of Gift dated 21st December, 1952 executed by G.  

Pullareddy  was  in  lieu  of  her  maintenance  and,  

accordingly, having regard to the views expressed  

by this Court in the case of  V. Tulasamma & Ors.  

vs.  V. Shesha Reddy [(1977) 3 SCC 99], the life  

estate given to Sheshamma blossomed into a right of  

full ownership in respect of the plaint schedule  

properties. Reference was also made to a subsequent  

decision  of  this  Court  in  Thota  Sesharathamma  &  

Anr. vs.  Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.  

[(1991) 4 SCC 312], where following the decision in  

Tulasamma’s case, it was inter alia held that Sub-

Section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession  

Act, 1956, would operate where there was no pre-

existing  right  and  a  restricted  estate  in  the  

property is conferred for the first time under any  

10

instrument.

11. Reference was also made to the decision of a  

three-Judge Bench of this Court in  C. Masilamani  

Mudaliar  &  Ors. vs.  Idol  of  Sri  Swaminathaswami  

Swaminathaswami  Thirukoil  &  Ors. [(1996)  8  SCC  

525],  where  the  earlier  views  expressed  in  

Tulasamma’s case (supra) and Thota Sesharathamma’s  

(supra) were re-emphasized and it was also added  

that Section 14 should be construed harmoniously  

considering  the  constitutional  goal  of  removing  

gender-based  discrimination  and  effectuating  

economic  empowerment  of  Hindu  females  vis-à-vis  

their  rights  under  the  Constitution  and  the  

protection  of  human  rights  as  embodied  in  the  

Vienna Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms  

of  Discrimination  against  Women  (CEDAW),  as  

ratified by the United Nations on 18.12.1979 and by  

the  Government  of  India  on  19.06.1993.   It  was  

11

urged  that  all  the  transactions  entered  into  by  

Sheshamma, including the registered Will in favour  

of  the  Petitioners,  were  accordingly  valid  and  

acted upon.   

12. On the question of res judicata, it was urged  

that having regard to the decision in O.S.No.17 of  

1975  and  O.S.No.  367  of  1974,  which  was  never  

challenged and attained finality, the High Court  

erred in holding that the subsequent suit filed by  

Respondent No.1, G. Ramireddy, was not barred by  

the principles of  res judicata.  It was submitted  

by Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Advocate, that the  

Trial Court, as well as the High Court, had erred  

in  law  in  decreeing  the  suit  filed  by  the  

Respondent  No.1  and  directing  the  Petitioners  

herein to put the said Respondent in possession of  

the plaint schedule properties.   

12

13. On  behalf  of  the  Respondent  No.1  it  was  

submitted by Ms. T. Anamika, learned Advocate, that  

the judgment and order of the High Court affirming  

the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  Trial  Court  

decreeing  the  suit  in  favour  of  the  Respondent  

No.1/Plaintiff did not call for any interference on  

account of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the  

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which squarely covered  

the facts of this case.  It was contended that  

after  Pullareddy  acquired  his  1/3rd share  in  the  

joint properties pursuant to the partition effected  

in 1947, it was his intention that his minor son,  

Ramireddy, the Respondent No.1 herein, should be  

the  ultimate  beneficiary  of  the  Deed  of  Gift  

executed by him on 21.12.1952, and that his wife,  

Sheshamma, should act as caretaker of the property  

on behalf of the minor son while enjoying a life  

estate for herself.  As would be quite apparent  

from the Deed of Gift executed by Pullareddy, there  

13

was no intention on his part that the income from  

the property was to be in lieu of maintenance for  

Sheshamma.  On the other hand, it was crystal clear  

that Pullareddy intended to create for the first  

time a right in favour of Sheshamma to enjoy the  

properties during her life time and to take care of  

the same for the ultimate beneficiary of the Gift,  

namely, G. Ramireddy.

14. Referring  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Sadhu  Singh vs.  Gurdwara  Sahib  Narike  &  Ors.  

[(2006) 8 SCC 75], Ms. Anamika submitted that this  

Court had held that giving only a life-estate to  

the wife and stipulating that during her life time  

she would not be entitled either to testamentarily  

dispose of the property or to mortgage or sell it  

to anyone and that after her death the property  

would devolve on her nephews in equal shares, made  

it  very  clear  that  the  testator’s  widow  had  no  

14

pre-existing right in the self-acquired property of  

her husband.  As a result, the life-estate given to  

the widow under the Will could not get enlarged  

into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the  

Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  It was also held that  

the  widow  was  not  entitled  to  gift  away  the  

property and even if the gift was treated to be  

valid, the donee thereunder would be liable to be  

evicted by the legatees who acquired the title to  

the property after the cessation of life-estate of  

the widow on her death.  It was categorically held  

that  the  title  acquired  by  the  legatee  on  the  

widow’s  death  would  not  be  affected  by  mutation  

made in favour of the widow who died after such  

mutation.  This Court concluded that the essential  

ingredients for determining whether Section 14(1)  

of  the  above  Act  would  be  attracted  are:  the  

antecedents of the property, the possession of the  

property as on the date of commencement of the Act  

15

and the existence of a right in the female over it,  

however limited it may be.   

15. On the question of res judicata, reliance was  

placed on the decision of a three-Judge Bench of  

this  Court  in  Shakuntala  Devi vs.  Kamla  &  Ors.  

[(2005) 5 SCC 390], wherein it was held that a  

declaratory  decree  would  not  operate  as  res  

judicata,  unless  it  was  protected  by  a  special  

enactment.   

16. Despite  the  elaborate  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the respective parties, the scope of the  

Special Leave Petition is confined to the question  

as  to  whether  the  life-estate  created  by  

Pullareddy in favour of his wife, Sheshamma, by the  

Deed of Gift dated 21.12.1952 could be said to be  

an  interest  in  lieu  of  maintenance  which  

subsequently  became  enlarged  into  a  full-fledged  

right of ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu  

16

Succession Act, 1956, or whether the same amounted  

only to a life estate for the purpose of managing  

the properties and enjoying the fruits thereof till  

G. Ramireddy, the second son of Pullareddy, who was  

then a minor, attained majority.  The law in this  

regard has been crystallized in V. Tulasamma’s case  

(supra) and the same has been consistently followed  

over the years.  The ratio of the said decision in  

simple  terms  is  that  if  a  Hindu  woman  had  any  

existing interest in a property, howsoever small,  

prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act,  

1956, the same would blossom into a full-fledged  

right by virtue of the operation of Section 14(1)  

thereof.  On the other hand, if such a right was so  

acquired for the first time under an instrument,  

after the Act came into force, the provisions of  

Section 14(2) of the above Act would be attracted  

and would not convert such a right into a full-

fledged right of ownership of the property.

17

17. In the instant case, Pullareddy created a life  

interest  in  favour  of  his  wife,  Sheshamma,  in  

respect of the plaint schedule property, but also  

gifted the property in question to the Respondent  

No.1 herein, G. Ramireddy, who was then a minor.  

The principal object of the Deed of Gift executed  

by  Pullareddy  was  that  the  property  should  

ultimately go to G. Ramireddy, the Respondent No.1  

herein.  The question which we have to consider in  

this case is whether in view of the intervention of  

the  Hindu  Succession  Act  in  1956,  after  the  

execution of the Deed of Gift, it can be said that  

the gift intended in favour of G. Ramireddy stood  

extinguished by operation of Section 14(1) of the  

Act.

18. The consistent view which has been taken by  

this  Court  since  the  decision  in  V.  Tulasamma’s  

case  (supra)  is  that  the  provisions  of  Section  

18

14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would be  

attracted if any of the conditions contained in the  

Explanation stood fulfilled. If, however, a right  

is created in a Hindu female for the first time in  

respect  of  any  property  under  any  instrument  or  

under a decree or order of a Civil Court or under  

an  award,  where  a  restricted  estate  in  such  

property  is  prescribed,  the  provisions  of  sub-

section (1) of Section 14 would have no application  

by virtue of sub-section (2) thereof.

19. At this stage it would be worthwhile to set out  

the relevant portion of the Deed of Gift executed  

by Pullareddy, marked Exhibit A-11 in the suit and  

extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court. The  

same reads as follows:

“As I have great affection towards my  wife and my minor son Rami Reddy and  believed that they will look after me  

19

with all comforts, I hereby make an  arrangement that here after my wife  Sheshamma shall enjoy as she likes,  the income from the lands which stand  in my name, in Patta No.8 situated at  Maddula  Parva  Village  and  in  Patta  No.354  situated  at  Muchanapalli  village shown in the Schedule below,  without  any  right  to  alienate  the  said land to any one or to give the  said land on long lease and after the  death of my wife, my minor   son Rami  Reddy shall get possession of my land  along  with  his  share  of  land  and  enjoy   the  same  with  an  absolute  right thereon.”

The aforesaid provision has been considered by both  

the Courts below which have concurrently held that  

the life-estate created by Pullareddy in favour of  

Sheshamma was not in lieu of her maintenance as she  

was already managing the properties in question and  

in no uncertain terms it was the Donee’s desire  

20

that the said properties should ultimately go to  

his  son  Ramireddy,  the  Respondent  No.1  herein.  

Once  that  is  established,  apart  from  other  

surrounding circumstances, the immediate fallout is  

that Sheshamma’s rights in the properties came to  

be governed by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the  

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and her right does not  

blossom  into  an  absolute  estate  as  contemplated  

under sub-section (1).

20. Both the Courts below have correctly decided  

that Sheshamma did not acquire any right beyond a  

life-estate  in  the  suit  properties  and  on  her  

death,  the  said  properties  devolved  on  the  

Respondent  No.1  in  terms  of  the  Deed  of  gift  

executed by Pullareddy on 21.12.1952.

21. Even on the question of res judicata, we are in  

agreement  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  High  

Court.

21

22. The  Special  Leave  Petitions,  therefore,  fail  

and are dismissed.  The parties will bear their own  

costs of these proceedings.

                …………………………………………J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi Dated: 14.09.2010

22