Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai

8/10/2019 Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai

1/12

[Type text]

IINNTTHHEEHHOONNBBLLEE

SSUUPPRREEMMEECCOOUURRTTOOFFIINNDDIIAA

CCAASSEECCOONNCCEERRNNIINNGGSSEECCTTIIOONN1144OOFFHHIINNDDUUSSUUCCCCEESSSSIIOONNAACCTT,,11995566

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


2/12

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..........085) Written Pleading.........09

6) Prayer for Relief.........12


3/12



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


4/12



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
http://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=141389http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=S.A.Kaderhttp://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=80000http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=B.Malik,%20revised%20by%20Sudhir%20Talwar%20%28Advocate%29%20&%20Gunjan%20Rekhihttp://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=B.Malik,%20revised%20by%20Sudhir%20Talwar%20%28Advocate%29%20&%20Gunjan%20Rekhihttp://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=118419http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=P.Yadgir%20Rao%60shttp://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=P.Yadgir%20Rao%60shttp://indiankanoon.org/doc/1080704/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vakilno1.com%2Fbareacts%2Flaws%2Fcivil-procedure-code-1908.html&ei=2Uw1VIXpKJOcugSO64KYCA&usg=AFQjCNGvp3dwNQ3ZN1BLk8BCg6Z2PpF63w&bvm=bv.76943099,d.c2Ehttp://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vakilno1.com%2Fbareacts%2Flaws%2Fcivil-procedure-code-1908.html&ei=2Uw1VIXpKJOcugSO64KYCA&usg=AFQjCNGvp3dwNQ3ZN1BLk8BCg6Z2PpF63w&bvm=bv.76943099,d.c2Ehttp://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1080704/http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=P.Yadgir%20Rao%60shttp://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=P.Yadgir%20Rao%60shttp://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=118419http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=B.Malik,%20revised%20by%20Sudhir%20Talwar%20%28Advocate%29%20&%20Gunjan%20Rekhihttp://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=B.Malik,%20revised%20by%20Sudhir%20Talwar%20%28Advocate%29%20&%20Gunjan%20Rekhihttp://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=80000http://jainbookagency.com/booksearch.aspx?aname=S.A.Kaderhttp://jainbookagency.com/newdetails.aspx?id=141389


5/12



STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

Indian Constitution.


6/12



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 lifetimeand 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.


7/12



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?


8/12



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 sincethe 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 Parvatrao1 , 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.

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


9/12



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.


10/12



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 H imi and Anr . v. Hi ra Devi and Orsthe 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. Chatlapall i Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma;

SC stated that it is well settled legal position that if the right by a Hindu women under any
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1080704/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1080704/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1080704/


11/12



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.

InGumpha and Ors. v. Jaibai,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 whetherrelation 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.
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622720/


12/12



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

Documents

Subhan Rao v. Parvathi Bai