GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS.versusGADDAM RAMI REDDY & ANR.

                        [2010] 11 S.C.R. 656


A           GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS.
                                  V.
                 GADDAM RAMI REDDY & ANR.
               (SLP (C) Nos. 30004-30005 of 2008)
                       SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
B
           [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

       Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14(1) - Applicability of
  - If a right is created in a Hindu female for the first time in
C respect of any property under any instrument or under a
  decree/order/award, where a restricted estate in such property
  is prescribed - Held: Provisions of subsection (1) of s. 14
  would not applicable by virtue of sub-section (2) and would
  not convert such a right into a full-fledged right of ownership
D of the property - Provisions of s. 14(2) would be attracted -
  On facts, courts below rightly held that life-estate created in
  favour of wife by a gift deed executed by husband with the
  stipulation to the effect that after the death of wife, properties
  would devolve on his son, did not enlarge into an absolute
E estate as contemplated under sub-section (1) of s. 14- Wife's
  rights in the properties would be governed by sub-section (2)
  of s. 14 - On her death, properties devolved on the son in
  terms of gift deed - Life-estate created by husband in favour
  of wife was not in lieu of her maintenance - Also High Court
F rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of res judicata
  in view of the judgment passed in the earlier suit on the said
  issue having attained finality - Res judicata.

       In the year 1952, the husband-'GP' executed a deed
  of gift. He created a life-estate in favour of his wife 'S' and
G stipulated that after her death the said properties would
  devolve on his son-respondent no. 1, who was then a
  minor. 'GP' expired in 1957. 'S' executed a deed of
  relinquishment in respect of her share and executed sale

H                                656
     GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v.                  657
            GADDAM RAMI REDDY
deeds in favour of 'MC' and 'VR'. 'S' also executed a          A
registered Will in favour of her grandchildren bequeathing
the properties which were received by her through gift
deed. Respondent no. 1 filed a suit against 'MC' and 'VR'
for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by 'S' in
favour of 'MC' and 'VR', did not affect his rights in the      B
properties. The trial court decreed the suit and the said
order attained finality. Respondent no. 1 then filed a suit
for a direction upon the defendants-'MC', 'VR' and others,
to put him in the possession of the suit properties and
also for payment of mesne profits. The trial court decreed     c
the suit holding that life-estate created by husband in
favour of his wife by gift deed could not be said to be an
interest in lieu ·of maintenance, and the holding in the
previous suit that life estate did not enlarge into a full-
fledged right of ownership u/s. 14(1) had become final         0
and ·any claim through 'S' was void. The High Court
dismissed the appeals on the ground of res juicata.
Therefore, the petitioners filed the instant Special Leave
Petitions.

    Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court          E

       HELD: 1.1 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   F
of Section 14(1) thereof. On the other hand, the provisions
of Section 14(1) of the Act, 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        G
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. The provisions of Section 14(2) of the
                                                               H
    658      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   Act would be attracted and would not convert such a
    right into a full-fledged right of ownership of the property.
    [Paras 16 and 18] [667-A-C; 666-A-D)

       1.2 In the instant case, 'GP' created a life interest in
8 favour of his wife-'$' in respect of the plaint schedule
  property, but also gifted the property in question to
  respondent no.1, who was then a minor. The principal
  object of the deed of gift executed by 'GP' was that the
  property should ultimately go to respondent no.1. [Para
C 17] [666-F-G]

       1.3 The deed of gift was considered by both the
  courts below which concurrently held that the life-estate
  created by 'GP' in favour of 'S' was not in lieu of her
  maintenance as she was already managing the properties
0 in question and in no uncertain terms it was the donee's
  desire that the said properties should ultimately go to his
  son-respondent no.1. Once that is established, apart from
  other surrounding circumstances, the immediate fallout
  is that rights of 'S' in the properties came to be governed
E by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, and her right
  did not blossom into an absolute estate as contemplated
  under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. [Para 19]
  [667-G-H; 668-A]

       1.4 Both the courts below correctly decided that 'S'
F did not acquire any right beyond a life-estate in the suit
   properties and on her death, the said properties devolved
  on respondent no.1 in terms of the deed of gift executed
   by 'GP' on 21.12.1952. Even on the question of res
  judicata, the views expressed by the High Court were
G correct. [Paras 20 and 21] [668-B-C]

       V. Tu/asamma and Ors. vs. V. Shesha Reddy (1977) 3
    sec 99 - relied on.
          Thota Sesharathamma and Anr. vs. Thota Manikyamma
H
    GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v.                      659
           GADDAM RAMI REDDY
(Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 312; C. Masi/amani A
Mudaliar and Ors. vs. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami .
Swaminathaswami Thirukoil and Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 525;
Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike and Ors. (2006) 8
SCC 75; Shakuntala Devi vs. Kam/a and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC
390 - referred to.                                      B

                     Case Law Reference:

    (1977) 3 sec 99           relied on.            Para 10

    (1991) 4 sec 312          referred to.          Para 10
                                                                  c
    (1996) a sec 525          referred to.          Para 11
    (2006) a sec 75           referred to.          Para 14

    .(2005) s sec 390         referred to.          Para 15
                                                                  0
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
30004-30005 of 2008.

    From the Judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No. 1010
of 1997 and AS No. 2869 of 2004.                                  E

     Jayanth Muth Raj, Madhurika and P.V. Dinesh for the
Petitioners.

    T. Anamika for the Respondents.
                                                                  F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     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            G
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
                                                                  H
    660     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 11 S.C.R ..

A 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
B 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
C 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 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
D 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
E 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
F and 6 in the suit, did not affect his rights in the properti.es. He
  also prayed for permanent injunction 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
G 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.
H
     GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREODY & ORS. v.                       661
    GADDAM RAMI REDDY [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     5. On 15th August, 1991, Sheshamma died and on 9th A
October, 1991, G. Ramireddyfiled O.S. No.111 of1991, 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 and the B
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 c
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. D
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 sam~ could not operate as res judicata in
the present suit. The 5th.Defendant contested the suit claiming E
that he was 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 sa' 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.                      F

      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   G
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 was
                                                                     H
    662      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   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
B
    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
C   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
D   Item No.6 of the plaint 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
E   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
F   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
G   the Respondent No.1 was entitled, to be Rs.2,31,052/- for the
    period from 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
H   October, 2003. Both the appeals, ie., A.S.No. 1010/97 and
     GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v.                     663
    GADDAM RAMI REDDY [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
A.S.No.2869/04, were heard together and were disposed of          A
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.                                                             B

        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 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It C
  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. D
  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 E
  Lrs. & Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 312), where following the decision
  in Tulasamma's case, it was intBr 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 F
  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 G
& 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
                                                             H
    664     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A   and effectuating economic empowerment of Hindu females vis-
    '-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
B   by the Government of India on 19.06.1993. It was urged that
    ail\ 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
C   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
D   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.
E
         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 I
    Plaintiff did not call for any interference on account of the
F
    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
G   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
H
     GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v.                          665
    GADDAM RAMI REDDY [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]
was no intention on his part that the income from the property          A
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.             B

      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   C
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 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       D
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          E
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          F
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 and the existence
of a right in the female over it, however limited it may be.
                                                                        G-
     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. Kam/a & 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.
                                                                        H
    666     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       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. i2.1952 could be said to be an interest in lieu
B of maintenance which subsequently became enlarged into a full-
  fledged right of ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu
  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
c 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
D 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
E not convert such a right into a full-fledged right of ownership of
  the property.

       17. In the instant case, Pullareddy created a life interest
  in favour' of his wife, Sheshamma, in respect of the plaint
F 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
G 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.
H
    GADDAM RAMAKRISHNAREDDY & ORS. v.                      667
   GADDAM RAMI REDDY [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     18. The consistent view which has been taken by this Court A
since the decision in V. Tulasamma's case (supra) is that the
provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
would be attract~d 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 'H
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 wouid be worthwhile to set out the
                                                                  .c
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       D
    son Rami Reddy and believed that they will look after me
    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           E
    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        F
    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 G
properties in question and in no uncertain terms it was the
Donee's desire 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. H
    668     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 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
8
    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
C agreement with the views expressed by the High Court.

        22. The Special Leave Petitions, therefore, fail and are
    dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs of these
    proceedings.

    N.J.                                       SLPs dismissed.