REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.6981 of 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.33756 of 2015)
SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY,
AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
... Appellant (s)
Versus
OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR
DESHMUKH & ORS.
... Respondent(s)
ORDER
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowing a
second appeal and reversing the Judgment of the First Appellate Court,
which itself was a reversing Judgment, plaintiff No.1 in a suit for
recovery of possession and for past and future mesne profits, has come
up with the above appeal.
3.
We have heard Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 4.
4.
The suit property is a house, which originally belonged to one Shri
Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh. The said Kashirao Sampatrao
Deshmukh died on 1.05.1977, leaving behind him surviving, his wife
Smt. Shevantabai.
5.
Contending that after the death of her husband, Shevantabai gifted
the suit property to the appellant herein under a registered Gift Deed
dated 9.04.1981 and that the defendants who came into the house
under the pretext of helping Smt. Shevantabai and her husband in their
old age, slowly took complete control of the suit property and drove Smt.
Shevantabai out, the appellant herein and Smt. Shevantabai joined
together to file a civil suit in Regular C.S No.24 of 1982 in the Court of
the Civil Judge (J.D.), Akot. The suit was for recovery of possession. The
defendants in their written statement, set up a Will allegedly executed
by Shri Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh on 4.05.1976. It was the
contention of the defendants that under the said Will, Smt. Shevantabai
was granted only a life estate and that after her lifetime, the property
was to devolve upon the first defendant. The defendants claimed that
the gift deed executed by Shevantabai was null and void in view of a
limited life estate conferred upon her under the Will.
6.
The trial Court, by a Judgment and decree dated 17.12.1986 held
(i) that the Will set up by the defendants was proved; (ii) that
Shevantabai who was plaintiff No.2 was bequeathed only a right of
enjoyment during her life time and (iii) that therefore, the Gift Deed
executed by Smt. Shevantabai in favour of the appellant herein who was
the plaintiff No.1 was not valid and binding on the defendants.
Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the claim of the appellant herein,
but granted a decree in favour of plaintiff No.2, as she was alive at that
time and admittedly she was entitled to possession and enjoyment of the
suit property during her lifetime.
7.
Aggrieved by the decree of possession granted in favour of Smt.
Shevantabai (plaintiff No.2), the defendants filed a regular first appeal in
R.C.A No.408 of 1986. Aggrieved by the findings regarding the nature of
the bequest under the Will and the validity of the Gift Deed, the
appellant herein (plaintiff No.1) filed an independent first appeal in
R.C.A No.416 of 1986.
8.
The Additional District Judge, Akola, by a Judgment and decree
dated 22.01.1992 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and
allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, holding that the Will set
up by the defendants clearly gave Shevantabai all rights of enjoyment
including the right to dispose of the same and that, therefore, she was
the full owner of the suit property entitled to gift it to the appellant
herein.
9.
Though the Judgment of the First Appellate Court was a common
Judgment in two first appeals, namely, RCA Nos.408 and 416 of 1986,
the defendants filed only one second appeal in SA No.154 of 1992, on
the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The
said appeal was allowed by the High Court by a Judgment and decree
dated 14.10.2014, holding that what was granted in favour of
Shevantabai was only a life estate and that her estate could not have
enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is
against the said Judgment of the High Court that the appellant herein
who was plaintiff No.1 has come up with the above appeal.
10.
Before we proceed further, we must take note of the fact that the
plaintiff No.2 Smt. Shevantabai died on 20.08.2005. Admittedly,
Shevantabai did not leave behind any legal heir to succeed. The first
defendant was also not a legal heir, but was described in the Will set up
by him, as the nephew of the testator.
10.
Keeping the above facts in mind, let us now come to the core issue
on hand. All the three Courts proceeded on the basis that the execution
of the Will dated 4.05.1976 by Shri Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh
stood proved. It is only on the question of the nature of the bequest
made under the Will that each of the three Courts took different views.
While the trial Court took the view that under the Will, the testator’s
wife (plaintiff No.2) was given only a limited right of enjoyment for life,
the First Appellate Court held that what was bequeathed was full rights
of enjoyment, including the right to transfer. The First Appellate Court
highlighted the most important recital in the Will to the effect “as my
wife Smt. Shevantabai Kashirao Sampatrao Deshmukh has no other legal
heirs, after her death whatever property remains that property shall go to
my near nephew…..”. The words “after her death whatever property
remains” were clearly indicative of the fact that the bequest was not of a
life estate but was complete.
11.
Interestingly, the High Court did not overturn the finding of fact
recorded by the First Appellate Court. Instead, the High Court wrongly
proceeded to analyse SubSections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, to come to the conclusion that the limited estate did not
get enlarged into full ownership. The question of fact whether what was
conveyed under the Will, was only a limited right of enjoyment or full
ownership, was settled by the First Appellate Court in favour of the
plaintiffs. This finding was not held by the High Court to be perverse.
Though the High Court thought that one of the substantial questions of
law arising for consideration was whether Smt. Shevantabai was full
owner or limited owner, the High Court chose to answer this question
not on the basis of the recitals contained in the Will but on the basis of
the wrong understanding of an inapplicable Judgment of this Court in
Sadhu Singh vs. Gurudwara Sahib Narike and Ors.1 The High Court
overlooked the fact that in a civil dispute, the First Appellate Court is a
final Court of fact and law and the High Court’s interference under
Section 100 is only on a substantial question of law. Once the First
Appellate Court had found that the recitals contained in the Will clearly
conveyed full ownership, there was no occasion for the High Court to go
into Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act at all. Therefore, the
Judgment and decree of the High Court are clearly erroneous and liable
to be set aside.
12.
There is also one more reason why the High Court could not have
1
(2006) 8 SCC 75
interfered with the Judgment of the First Appellate Court. As we have
pointed out earlier, the First Appellate Court was concerned with two
regular first appeals, one filed by the defendants and another filed by
the appellant herein who was plaintiff No.1. The First Appellate Court
dismissed R.C.A No.408 of 1986 filed by the defendants and allowed
R.C.A No.416 of 1986 filed by the appellant herein. The defendants
chose to file only one second appeal and that was against the decree in
RCA No.408 of 1986. The decree in R.C.A No.416 of 1986 has been
allowed to attain finality. Even on this ground, the High Court ought to
have dismissed the second appeal.
13.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned
Judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside. The suit filed by
the appellant along with Smt. Shevantabai will stand decreed as prayed
for, as decided by the First Appellate Court in its Judgment dated
22.01.1992. There will be no order as to costs.
…..…………....................J.
(Hemant Gupta)
.…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
NEW DELHI.
ITEM NO.16 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
SUPREME COURT O F INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33756/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-10-2014
in SA No. 154/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Nagpur)
SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY,
AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
... Petitioner (s)
Versus
OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR
DESHMUKH & ORS.
... Respondent(s)
Date : 22-11-2021 This matter was called on for hearing on
22.11.2021 and the signed reportable order is
being uploaded today i.e. on 24.11.2021.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv
Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
On 22.11.2021, this Court passed the following order:-
“Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
Reasons to follow.”
The signed reportable order is being uploaded today i.e. on
24.11.2021.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.16 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
SUPREME COURT O F INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33756/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-10-2014
in SA No. 154/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Nagpur)
SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
OMPRAKASH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 22-11-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
Reasons to follow.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)