Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a decree in O.S.No.840/2001 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession in favour of the plaintiff, Smt. Ramamani. The plaintiff, widow of late M.K. Ramachandra Rao (a predeceased son of M.R. Keshavamurthy Rao), claimed a 1/3rd share in the suit property bearing No.92, East Park Road, Malleshwaram, inherited by Keshavamurthy Rao. Her husband having died in 1966 without issues, she asserted being his sole legal heir. The defendants, Smt. Padmavati (widow of the other son) and Smt. Nagarathna (daughter of Keshavamurthy Rao), resisted the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had remarried one Gururaj on 31.5.1968, before the death of Keshavamurthy Rao in 1972, thus attracting disqualification under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it then stood. The defendants also contended that a partition had taken place in 1972 between the other legal heirs. The trial court framed issues, and the plaintiff examined herself and marked documents; the defendants led no evidence. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the plaintiff entitled to a 1/3rd share. Aggrieved, the first defendant filed the Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC. During pendency of the appeal, the original parties died and were substituted by their legal representatives. The appellant raised grounds that the trial court failed to apply Section 24 Hindu Succession Act, that its omission in 2005 was prospective, that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, and that the adoption deed of Avinash (LR of deceased plaintiff) was invalid under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 09.11.2022, and pronounced on 14.12.2022. The provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the court’s final analysis or decision on the merits of the appeal.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in not applying Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to disqualify the plaintiff who remarried before the death of the propositus; whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the adoption deed produced by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff was valid
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (12) 2
M.R. Rajagopal, V. Raviprakash (for appellant); G. Papi Reddy, Varun Papireddy (for R1(a)); Prakash Hegde K. (for R2(a))
Smt. Vijaya (LR of deceased appellant Smt. Padmavati)
Avinash G. (LR of deceased respondent No.1 Smt. Ramamani) and Shri Guruprasad (LR of deceased respondent No.2 Smt. Nagarathna)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Partition suit filed by plaintiff claiming 1/3 share in suit property, resisted on ground of remarriage disqualification under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged defendants were attempting to alienate the property.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit on 09.07.2008, granting 1/3 share to plaintiff.
Issues
Whether Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it stood prior to 2005 amendment disqualified the plaintiff from inheriting as a widow of a predeceased son.
Whether the plaintiff’s remarriage in 1968 before the death of the propositus in 1972 disentitled her to claim a share.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.
Whether a prior partition in 1972 affected the plaintiff’s claim.
Whether the adoption deed of Avinash (LR of plaintiff) was valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that Section 24, as it then stood, was in force at the time succession opened in 1972 and disqualified the plaintiff, who had remarried in 1968, from inheriting any share.
Appellant contended that the omission of Section 24 by the 2005 amendment is prospective and does not apply to successions opening before 09.09.2005.
Appellant submitted that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff was excluded from the joint family property since her remarriage in 1968, and a partition had taken place in 1972 to which she was not a party.
Appellant challenged the validity of the adoption deed of Avinash, asserting that the consent of the wife (Smt. Ramamani) for adoption was not expressly given as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Plaintiff/Respondent relied on the trial court’s findings and precedents including AIR 1996 SC 46, AIR 2005 Kar. 422 and AIR 1983 Pat.33 to argue that remarriage does not divest a vested right once succession opened, and that the suit was not barred.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share and its separate possession in the suit schedule property. (Para 1)
It is contended that after the death of Ramachandra Rao, his wife plaintiff-Ramamani remarried one Gururaj on 31.5.1968 and therefore, when the succession opened, she was not a legal heir to the family (Para 5)
The trial court has erred in not appreciating that Sec.24 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as it then stood disentitled Respondent No-1 from inheriting the property (Para 10)
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S.No.840/2001 before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property. The trial court framed issues, and after recording evidence of the plaintiff and marking documents (defendants led no evidence), decreed the suit on 09.07.2008, holding plaintiff entitled to 1/3 share. Aggrieved, the first defendant filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant died on 12.11.2017 and her legal representative was brought on record; respondent No.1 died on 17.12.2012 and her legal representative was substituted; respondent No.2 also died and her legal representative was brought on record. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 09.11.2022, and pronounced on 14.12.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 24
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 110
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Section 7
