0

A widow loses her right over the property on contracting second marriage: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Vs Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 8616 OF 2017

Decision on: April 9th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Facts of the case

The issue in the present case pertains to the partition of suit property. The suit was instituted by one Chandu claiming 8/20 share in the suit property. The appellants in the instant case were the defendants in the said suit and are successors in interest of one Sankaran. Sankaran and Chandu were uterine brothers and sons of one Chiruthey, a woman who was married twice. Sankaran was born out of her first wedlock with Madhavan. But, after the death of Madhavan she contracted second marriage with Neelakandan and Chandu was born out of her second wedlock. The parties belong to Malayakamala Sect and were governed the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiff (respondents in appeal) claims his share to the suit property from his mother, described in the plaint as owner of the property. During the course of proceedings both the uterine brothers died and their respective successors in interest represented their claims before the Court.

The Trial Court sustained the claim for partition and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The Court disbelieved that the deed was in discharge of liability under the mortgage deed and ruled that Chiruthey had no authority to lease out the subject-property. It held that she would not derive title to her deceased husband’s property when she got married again to Neelakandan according to Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act. The High Court in the judgment primarily relied on the deeds executed in July 1910 to sustain the claim of Chandu represented by his successors-in-interest. Hence, the appellants contesting the same have approached the Apex Court.

Issue – Whether Chiruthey had any title over the subject-property which the plaintiff claimed through the series of transactions?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court examined the historical background of the property and succession rights of the parties involved. It delved into the validity of mortgage deed and subsequent lease agreements executed in 1910. The Court noted that on remarriage of Chiruthey, her title or interest over the suit property stood lapsed in terms of Section 2 of the 1856 Act. Subsequently, her right to deal with property stood extinguished so far as the deed of 1910 is concerned. However, considering the fact that it was executed by two other persons the Court accepted the validity of the lease deed.

The Court highlighted that if a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over the same, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. It pointed out that Chiruthey could not convey any property over which she did not have any right or title. It emphasized that no claim was made before any forum for invalidating the deed of July 1910 but in absence of proper title over the subject property, that lease deed even if she was its sole lessor would not have had been legally valid or enforceable. Further, the Court observed that what she got back by way of the document was limited right as that of a lessee and not as a successor of her first husband.

The Court, furthermore, on the question of plaintiff’s claim of his share over the suit property through Chiruthey, it ruled that she had lost her right over the subject property on contracting second marriage and that her status over the said property, post-1910 if at all was that of lessee. It relied on the legal principles in the case of Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by lrs. v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (dead) by lrs. and Ors. Hence, the Court stated that there was no indication in any of the deeds that the said lease could travel beyond the stipulated term of twelve years. It thus held that the ownership of the suit property could not be said to have devolved in any manner to the original plaintiff Chandu. Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court, and affirmed the decision of the First Appellate Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

The Court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party for condonation of delay and cannot allow it as a matter of generosity: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Union of India & Anr. Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy

Case no.: S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019

Decision on: April 3rd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Facts of the case

The suit property situated at Staveley Road, Pune was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants (Centre) in 1951. The appellants however, breached the terms of the lease deed, which led to the institution of civil suit by the respondents. The Court ruled in favour of the respondents allowing them to recover the possession of their suit property & arrears towards the rent. Subsequently, the plea challenging the judgement was dismissed by the Appellant Court.

The appellants contested the same before the High Court of Bombay invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. In 2019, the appellants through a Civil Application sought for restoration of the said petition and prayed for condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in preferring such restoration application. However, a Single Judge Bench of this Court through an impugned order declined the plea. Consequently, it was presented the Apex Court

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

The Counsel for the State submitted that the appellants were entitled to the condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in accordance with the merits of the case. In light of the fact, that that the suit property being under the ownership of the Union of India and the same held by the respondent on old grant lease, he emphasized that it shall not permit the respondent in his capacity as a private party to deprive the Government of its land after having admitting that the super structure alone belongs to him and not the land.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel submitted that the High Court was correct in passing the impugned order and contended that there was no sufficient ground to grant condonation for such a long and inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Thereby, he contended that there is no merit in entertaining the present plea.

Issue – Whether the High Court has committed erred in passing the impugned order and are the appellants entitled to condonation for the delay in filing the restoration application?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court on perusal of the materials on record highlighted the suggestion given by this Court to the appellants. It stated that if the possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent, then the Court might consider the restoration of the petition, despite of a long and inordinate delay. But however, non-compliance on the same led to the dismissal of appellants’ plea. It noted that the fact whether the litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India is irrelevant when condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. The Court asserted that while considering the plea for condonation of delay it must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Further, it stated that only if there sufficient cause established by the litigant and is equally balanced between the parties the court might proceed with the merits of the matter.

It noted that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration and should be based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity thus, cannot be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. The Court further, referring to various authorities noted that the High Court has not erred in passing the impugned judgement. It held that the appellants have failed to satisfy the vital test for condoning the delay and hence, stated that the same cannot be allowed as a matter of generosity. Accordingly, it dismissed the instant appeals. The Court through the Judgment has laid down a clear cut legal framework on allowing for condonation of delay and reiterated the settled law of bonfide explanation in seeking the same.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement