Holding

The will confers a life interest in equal undivided shares, making the widows co‑owners; under Section 14(1) each becomes an absolute owner of her half share, so no surplus land exists.

Summary

The testator's 1948 will granted his two wives equal life interests in the estate, stipulating that the survivor would enjoy the whole property and that after both wives' deaths the daughter would have a life interest followed by her children in fee simple. After the second wife died in 1967, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 was applied and authorities treated the surviving wife as having acquired the entire estate by survivorship, declaring a portion of the land surplus. The appellant challenged this, arguing that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the widows were co‑owners, not joint owners, and that Section 14(1) – not Section 14(2) – applied, making each widow an absolute owner of her undivided half share. The Supreme Court held that the will created common ownership, that Section 14(1) applied, and that the surviving wife possessed only her half share, so no surplus land existed. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the will created a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common (common ownership) between the two widows.
Whether Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs the widows' interests.
Whether the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 can deem land surplus based on the assumption of survivorship.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1), s. 14(2)

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 14widow's rightscommon ownershipjoint tenancyTamil Nadu Land Reforms Actland ceilingsurplus landtestamentary disposition

Judgment

'
KUPPUSAMY A
v.
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT
COMMISIONER (LAND REFORMS)

JULY 23, 1996
B
IJ.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.J

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 :

S.14( 1)-Will-Creating life interest in favour of two wives of deceased C
testatm-Stipulating that if any one pre-deceased, the swviving would enjoy
the entirety-Held, mi coming into force of the Act both widows became
absolute owners of their respective shares--They succeeded to propelties as
conunon owners and not joint Olvners-On the death of one of the111, her
share would go to her children-Tamil Nadu Land Refonns (Reduction of
ceiling 011 Land) Act, 1970 : s.3(33). D
'G', the maternal grandfather of the appellant died in 1949 leaving
behind a registered will dated 16.12.1948 to the effect that the properties
set out therein would he enjoyed by his two wives ('W-1 and W-2') in equal
shares during their life tirrie and, if any one of them pre-deceased, the E
survivor would enjoy the entirety; that after the death of both 'W-1 and
W-2', 'K' the daughter from 'W-2' would enjoy for her life time and after
her death, her children would enjoy the properties absolutely.

'W-2' died in 1967. On coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Lanl
Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970, the authorities under F
the act, assuming that on the death of 'W-2' 'W-1' succeeded to the entire
estate by survivorship and became ''nmer' thereof as provided under
s.3(33) of the Act, declared some of the land as surplus. The appellant, son
of 'K', challenged the order before the High Court in a writ petition, which
was transferred to the Special Appellate Tribunal. The Special Tribunal G
upheld the decision of the authorities under the Act. Aggrieved, the appel-
lant filed the present appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that after coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in view of s.14(1) thereof, both the widows of
'G' became absolute O\\'Ilers of the properties given to them under the will H
837
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in equal shares and when 'W-2' died iu 1967 her undivided half share would
go to her children and 'W-1' would succeed only to t11e other half of the
undivided share and, as such, there would be no surplus land with 'W-1'.
The respondent-State contended that in the facts of the case s.14(2) of
Hindu Succession Act would apply anti not s.14(1).

B Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. From the terms of the will it is clear that on the death of
the testator, the 11idows shall succeed to the estate in equal shares for
enjoyment of the same which means that they succeed to the properties as
C common owners and not as joint o\lners. After the cooling into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, in the light of section 14(1), each 11idow being in
possession of the undivided half share, their respective share enlarges into
absolute one and they \\'ill be absolute O\VI1ers of their respective half share
in the undivided estate left by the testator. As such, on coming into force
of the Ceiling Act on 15.2.1970 'W-1' was not in possession of any excess
D land; therefore, the surplus declared on the assumption that she possessed
of properties in excess of ceiling lin1it cannot be sustained. On the facts,
there is nothing to show that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is
attracted. [841-A-D]

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10310 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.95 of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras in T.R.P. No. 17 of 1994.

S. Sivasubramanian and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants.
F
V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G K. VENKATASWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is preferred
against the order of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate
Tribunal, Madras in T.R.P. No. 17 of 1994 dated 28th March, 1995.

One Sellappa Gounder died in the year 1949 leaving behind two
wives, Nallammal and Periammal and also a registered will dated 16.2.1948.
H The said Sellappa Gounder had a daughter through Periammal by name

-
KUPPUSAMY ,_ AUTilORISED OFFICER AND A5'TI. COMMR. JK VEN KATASW AMI, l. J839

Kuppammal. The appellant is the son of said Kuppamal. As per the terms A
of the will, the properties set out thereunder will have to be e11joyed by the
widows in equal shares during their lifetime and if any one of them
pre-deceased, the survivor will enjoy the entirely. And after the death of
both, his daughter Kuppammal will enjoy for her life Lime and after her
death the children of Kuppammal will enjoy absolutely. B
•
Periammal, the second wife of the said Scllappa Gounder died in
1967. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of
Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into
force on 15.2.1970. The Authorities under the A_ct assumed that on the
death of Periarnrnal, Nellammal succeeded lo the entire estate by survivor-
c
ship. Further treating the first wife Nallarnrnal as limited owner and thereby
coming within the purview of 'owner' under section 3(33) of the Principal
Act, the authorities under the Act declared an extent of 36.65 ordinary
acres equivalent to 9.163 standard acres out of 91.78 1/2 ordinary acres
equivalent to 24.393 standard acres of land as surplus. Aggrieved by that D
after exhausting the statutory remedies, the appellant moved the High
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8824 of 1989 which was transferred to the
Special Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) on
the constitution of the sarne.
E
Before the Tribunal l\VO contentions were raised. The first contention
was that the first wife Nallammal was only a limited owner and as per the
will executed by the deceased Sellappa Gounder and having regard to the
intention of the testator, it must be held that the estate will vest absolutely
with the children of Kuppammal and therefore, the provisions of the Act F
are not attracted. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal in view
of Section 3(33) of the Act which includes 'limited owner' also in the
definition of 'owner'. The next contention advanced before the Tribunal
was that a dispute regarding the title to the property in question has already
been decided in favour of the appellant and therefore the proceedings
taken under the Land Reforms Act should be modified accordingly. This G
contention also was rejected by the Tribunal holding that on date of coming
into force of the Act on 15.2.1970, there was no litigation pending regarding
title and interest of Nallammal and as such the subsequent proceedings
cannot be taken note of. In the result the Special Appellate Tribunal

. sustained the surplus declared under the Act. Aggrieved by the order of H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal, the present appeal has bee;, filed.

Before· us different arguments were addressed by the learned senior
counsel Mr. Sivasubramanian for the appellant. According to him after the
coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, both the widows of
B Sellappa Gounder would get the properties given to them under the will
absolutely and as per the terms of the will, they Sllf'Ceeded to the properties
in equal shares without partition by metes and bounds. That being the
position, when the second wife died on 3.10.67, her undivided half share in
the properties will go to her children and the first wife will succeed only
to the other half of the undivided shares. That being the position, it is
C contended that authorities went wrong in proceeding as if Nallammal and
Periammal were joint owners and on the death of Periammal, Nallammal
succeeded to the entire property by survivorship and it is contrary to the
terms of the will read with section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

D Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
State however submitted that on the facts of this case, section 14(2) will
apply and not section 14(1 ). He also submitted that terms of the will only
support the stand taken by the authorities, namely, that Nallammal suc-
ceeded to the entire property by survivorship.

E To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the
terms of the will as translated in English and filed in this Court. Relevant.
portion of will read as follows :

"The undermentioned properties having come to belong to me as
F of hereditary rights shall be bequeathed to both individual nos. 1
& 2, being my wives in equal share after my lifetime and enjoy the
same without subjecting the respective property into any en-
cumbrance till the life of both of you respectively. If one of you
\Vere to pre-decease the other individual, the surviving individual
shall obtain the entire properties and enjoy the same without
G subjecting the properties into any encumbrance and even granting
that the same were to be encumbered, the same would not be valid.
After the life time of the individual nos. 1and2, the third individual
aforesaid being my only daughter namely Kuppathal shall obtain
the properties and enjoy the same during her life time without
H subjecting the same into any encumbrance or alienate."
KUPPUSAMY r. AITTIJORISED OFFICER AND /\SSTT. COM MR. [K YENKATA..">\VAt\11. .f.]84]

From the above terms it is clear that on the death of the testator, the A
\vi<lo\VS :-;hall succeed lo the estate in equal shares for enjoyment of the
same v..·hich n1cans that they succeeded to the properties as con1mon
owners and not as joint owners. If they have succeeded to the properties
as common owners then after the coming into force of the Hindu Succes-
sion Act and in the light of section 14(1) and each widow being in
B
possession of the undivided half share, their respective share enlarges into
absolute one and they will be absolute owners of their respective half share
in the undivided estate left by the testator.

The above being the position, Nallammal will be entitled to only half
of the properties given under the will on the death of Periammal and not C
the entire properties as assumed by the authorities under the Ceiling Act.
lf Nallammal succeeded only to half of the properties under the will, then
on 15.2.1970, which is not in dispute, she was not in a possession of any
excess land and therefore, the surplus declared on the assumption that she
possessed of properties in excess of ceiling limit cannot be sustained. On
the facts as found by the Tribunal below, there is nothing to show that D
• section 14(2) of the Hir.du Succession Act, is attracted.

In this view of the matter, the appeal has to be allowed and, accord-
ingly, it is allowed and the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal is set
aside. No costs.
E
R.P. Appeal allowed .

. .