9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Raghavamma had a limited estate under the compromise decree u/s 14(2) or an absolute estate u/s 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the patta granted by the Settlement Authorities. Summary: Issue 1: Limited Estate vs. Absolute Estate The primary question was whether Raghavamma, under the compromise decree (Ex.A-11), had a limited estate attracting Sub-section (2) of Section 14 or an absolute estate by operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court held that Raghavamma's right was enlarged into an absolute estate by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, as the compromise decree was in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance. However, the Supreme Court found that subsequent documents (Ex. B-3 and A-4) executed by Raghavamma acknowledged her limited right under the compromise decree, indicating that she acquired the limited right for the first time under the compromise decree. Therefore, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 was applicable, and her right did not get enlarged into an absolute estate. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Civil Court The Supreme Court also addressed whether the civil court could question the patta granted by the Settlement Authorities under Section 15 of the AP (AA) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is excluded when a statute provides a special right or liability and a procedure for determination by a Tribunal, giving finality to the Tribunal's orders. Since the Settlement Officer's order granting ryotwari patta had become final, the civil court could not unsettle it. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in granting the decree for the properties gifted under the will dated 16.7.1972. The appeal was allowed, and the decree was set aside, without costs.
|
