Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai

[Type text]
I IN N T TH HE E H HO ON N B BL LE E
S SU UP PR RE EM ME E C CO OU UR RT T O OF F I IN ND DI IA A

C CA AS SE E C CO ON NC CE ER RN NI IN NG G S SE EC CT TI IO ON N 1 14 4 O OF F H HI IN ND DU U S SU UC CC CE ES SS SI IO ON N A AC CT T, , 1 19 95 56 6

Subhan Rao and others (Appellants)

v.

Parvathi Bai and others (Respondents)

MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANTS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Ahmad Ibrahim

Semester- 3

Roll No. 10

Subhan Rao & Anr vs Parvathi Bai & Ors.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations3
Table of Authorities.4
Books Referred
Acts
Manual
1) Statement of Jurisdiction........05
2) Synopsis of Facts..........................................................................................................06
3) Issues Raised...............07
4) Summary of Arguments..........08
5) Written Pleading.........09
6) Prayer for Relief.........12



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R....All India Reporter

Honble.......Honourable

V. ...Versus

Ors...............................................................................................................others

&....................................................................................................................And

Arts...........................................................................................................Articles

Del...............................................................................................................Delhi

Ed. ............................................................................................................Edition

SC..................................................................................................Supreme Court

SCC......................................................................................Supreme Court Cases



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Books: -

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.A.Kader, 2nd edition, 2014
Commentary on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, B.Malik, revised by Sudhir Talwar
(Advocate) & Gunjan Rekhi, 2nd edition, reprint 2013
Law of Inheritance Under Hindu Law & The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, P.Yadgir
Rao`s, 2011

Cases referred:-

Himi and Anr. v. Hira Devi and Ors
Bhura and Ors. v. Kashi Ram
G. Appaswami Chettiar and Anr. v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar and Ors.
Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma
Gumpha and Ors. v. Jaibai

Statute
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Online Assistance

www.manupatrafast.in
www.indiankanoon.org



STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellants have approached the Honble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Indian Constitution.


STATEMENT OF FACTS
Shiddoji Rao kept Gangubai as his mistress. Ramchandra Rao was born from that
relationship.
Shiddoji Rao died on 16.1.1942. About four months before his death, Shiddoji Rao
executed maintenance deed Ex.P-1 (his son Sadasiv Rao joined his father in
executing the deed), whereby possession of Rayatawa lands situated at Belagali and
Kabbur villages was given to Ramchandra Rao for his maintenance with a
stipulation that in case of his death without having natural male issue, his wife shall
enjoy the lands for her maintenance till her life time and the same shall revert to the
executants after her death.
The deed also contained a condition that Ramchandra Rao, his wife and natural
heirs shall not create any encumbrance or alienate the lands.
Ramchandra Rao died in 1957 and Smt. Sundrabai died in 1979. During her life time,
Smt. Sundrabai executed sale deeds in favour of Smt. Parvathi Bai (respondent No.1)
and S/Shri Deepak and Vinayak (respondent Nos.2 and 3) in respect of some of the
lands specified in Ex. P-1.
Subhan Rao (adopted son of Sadashiv Rao) (appellant No.1 herein) and Smt. Prafulla
Devi wife of Sadashiv Rao filed for declaration of title and for setting aside the sale
deeds executed by Smt. Sundrabai, who was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the suit.
After the death of Smt. Sundrabai, Smt. Ningawwa and Prakash Virupaksh Mahajan
(respondent Nos. 4 and 5) were brought on record as her legal representatives on the
basis of registered Will executed by the deceased.
The thrust of the case set up is that Shiddoji Rao and Sadashiv Rao executed deed of
maintenance, which has also been described as `potagi patra' with a view to provide
maintenance to Ramchandra Rao and his wife Smt. Sundrabai during their lifetime
and as both of them died issueless, the lands automatically reverted to the family of
the executants.
In view of the express bar contained in Ex.P-1 against alienation of the lands
mentioned therein, the sale deeds executed by Smt. Sundrabai in favour of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 were nullity and they did not acquire any right on the basis of such
alienation.


ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether Smt. Sundrabai wife of Ramchandra Rao, who was given right to enjoy
certain lands belonging to Shiddoji Rao in lieu of maintenance became full owner
thereof in terms of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Smt. Sundrabai wife of Ramchandra Rao, who was given right to enjoy certain lands
belonging to Shiddoji Rao in lieu of maintenance did not become full owner of the land since
the executors had created only life estate in favour of Ramchandra Rao and his wife Smt.
Sundrabai. Moreover, the judgment of the Division Bench of Mysore High Court in
Ramachandra Rao v. Sadashivarao Shiddojirao Parvatrao
1
, to show that the suit filed by
Ramchandra Rao for partition and possession of 1/4th share in the properties belonging to the
family of Shiddoji Rao was dismissed by the three courts including the High Court on the
premise that the plaintiff was an illegitimate son of Shiddoji Rao. In view of that judgment
Ramchandra Rao or for that reason his wife Smt. Sundrabai could not claim absolute right
over the lands mentioned in Ex.P-1.

1
Ramachandra Rao v. Sadashivarao Shiddojirao Parvatrao (1967) 2 Mysore Law Journal, page 303


WRITTEN PLEADINGS
Smt. Sundrabai wife of Ramchandra Rao, who was given right to enjoy certain lands
belonging to Shiddoji Rao in lieu of maintenance did not become full owner of the land.
The concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court that by
virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Sundrabai became owner of
the lands specified in Ex.P-1 is liable to be set aside because the executors had created only
life estate in favour of Ramchandra Rao and his wife Smt. Sundrabai. To buttress this
argument, the learned senior counsel relied upon the contents of Ex.P-1. Shri Diwan then
referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of Mysore High Court in Ramachandra Rao v.
Sadashivarao Shiddojirao Parvatrao (1967) 2 Mysore Law Journal, page 303, to show that the
suit filed by Ramchandra Rao for partition and possession of 1/4th share in the properties
belonging to the family of Shiddoji Rao was dismissed by the three courts including the High
Court on the premise that the plaintiff was an illegitimate son of Shiddoji Rao. Learned senior
counsel argued that in view of that judgment Ramchandra Rao or for that reason his wife
Smt. Sundrabai could not claim absolute right over the lands mentioned in Ex.P-1 and the
courts below as well as the High Court committed serious error by refusing to nullify the sale
deeds executed by her.
Having regard to the earlier decision of this Court as per Ramachandra Rao v. Sadashivarao
Shiddojirao Parvatrao of 1956, the status of Ramachandra Rao vis-a-vis the family of Siddoji
Rao is already decided inasmuch as he has been held as the son of Siddoji Rao born from an
adulterous intercourse not entitled to any property rights in the estate of Siddoji Rao.
Ramachandra Rao takes the property only under Ex. P. 1-potgi patra and not independent of
it. He is bound by the terms of the grant. Since potgi patra itself states that his wife, Sundari
Bai will take a life estate after the death of Ramachandra Rao and in the absence of any male
children born to Ramachandra Rao and Sundari Bai, the life estate of Sundari Bai gets
terminated on her death and the property reverts to the family of Siddoji Rao, i.e., the
plaintiffs herein. The life estate created in favour of Sundari Bai will not get enlarged into an
"Absolute estate" as there was no pre-existing right of Sundari Bai to be maintained by the
family of Siddoji Rao. The entire right to property flows only from and through the potgi
patra and not independent of it.


Therefore, it is Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act that has application to the facts of
this case and not Section 14(1). In order to bring out the distinction between Section 14(1)
and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, and the same in discussed in the following cases to
show that Smt. Sundra Bai did not become the absolute owner of the lands.
In Himi and Anr. v. Hira Devi and Ors the SC held that the Compromise Decree for the first
time created a right in favour of Daughter in law to remain in possession of the property
belonging to father in law only during her lifetime and as that right was conferred for the first
time under the Consent Decree and was not in lieu of any pre-existing right of Bai Utti in Bai
Lachhmu`s property Section 14 sub-section (2) applied to the facts of the case and not
Section 14 sub- section (1).
In Bhura and Ors. v. Kashi RamSC stated that the High Court was right in holding that
Appelant 1 had only a limited estate in the suit land and, therefore, the alienations made by
her in favour of defendants 2 to 9, were not binding on the appellant, after the death of
Sarjabai. The possession of Sarjabai, at the time of the coming into force of the Abolition
Act, being only on the basis of the will, the High Court rightly set aside the judgment and
decree of the trial court and directed that since Sarjabai had died that had brought to an end
her limited rights, and therefore the transferees, Respondents, 2 to 9, should put the plaintiff-
appellant in possession of the suit land. We uphold the finding of the High Court.
In G. Appaswami Chettiar and Anr. v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar and Ors. The SC stated that
that in any event the appellants cannot succeed as after-the Hindu Succession Act came into
force in 1956 the life estate which Ramathilakam Ammal bad, would ripen into an absolute
estate under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This contention was rightly rejected by the High
Court as the life estate to which Ramathilakam Ammal was entitled was under the will of her
father and therefore section 14 (2) of the Act would be applicable and the life estate would
not be enlarged into an absolute estate. As we have held that the adoption is valid and that
the second respondent is entitled to take the estate of Gopalasami Chettiar under the will the
appellants are not entitled to any declaration in respect of the alienations made by
respondents 1. and 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 as they are not entitled to any interest
in the properties.
In Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma;
SC stated that it is well settled legal position that if the right by a Hindu women under any


instrument is in recognition of pre-existing right, the limited right though prescribed under
the instrument, gets enlarged into an absolute right by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act.
On the other hand, if a right is acquired for the first time under the document, then Sub-
section (2) of Section 14 gets attracted and, therefore, the right acquired under the instrument
by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 does not get enlarged.
In Gumpha and Ors. v. J aibai, the SC explans and widens the ambit of sub-section (1) and
extends it to any acquisition mentioned in it and by the first part the operation of sub-section
(1) is extended to both moveable and immoveable properties.
The second part then enumerates the manner of acquisition. It includes inheritance and
device; partition; in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance; gift from any whether
relation or not before, at or after her marriage; by her own skill or exertion; by purchase; by
prescription; in any manner whatsoever; property held by her as stridhan immediately before
the commencement of this Act. It does not include acquisition by will. That is in conformity
with Section 30 of the Act. Otherwise it would have given rise to conflict between the
property disposed of by a Hindu by a will creating limited interest and the acquisition of
interest by a female under Section 14(1). None of these acquisitions are capable of creating
any difficulty. But the acquisition in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance and in any
manner whatsoever needs elucidation. Use of words 'in lieu of' or 'arrears of' appear to be
significant.
Basing the submission on the strength of the above arguments it is further contended that
Sundari Bai had only a right of usufruct and not right to the corpus which means that she had
no right to alienate the property. The alienation therefore made in violation of terms of potgi
patra was void and the alienees did not acquire any title to the property defeating the right of
reversioners.
The courts below as well as the High Court committed serious error by refusing to nullify the
sale deeds executed by her.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore in the lights of the facts stated, authorities cited, arguments advanced, the
appellants humbly request the Honble Court to adjudge and declare t:-
1. To allow the appeal,
2. Nullify the sale deed done by Sundri Bai,
3. Bring an order of injunction to the respondents restricting them from further
alienation of the land.
All of which is most humbly prayed.
Date: 08.10.2014
Council for Appellants
Ahmad Ibrahim
Roll. No. 10

Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Type text]

You might also like