Thimmarayappa and anr. Vs. Smt. Tholasamma and ors. - Court Judgment |
- section 13: [n.k.patil,j] application under order 26, rule 10a c.p.c.,- allegation of the husband/respondent against his wife/petitioner that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - divorce petition by the husband/respondent rejection of petitioners application seeking experts second opinion challenge as to held, it is crystal clear from the relevant provisions of the act that, paranoid schizophrenia is one of the grounds but not the only ground for divorce. the said disease should be exhaustively examined, proved and certified by expert doctors in the field of psychiatry. therefore, taking into account the paramount consideration and welfare of the children and also the seriousness of the alleged disease, alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner, the matter is required to be referred to the expert opinion at nimhans hospital, bangalore to have a second opinion. once that is done, the litigants would know their fate, where they stand and that would enable them to take right and conscious decision and get ready to face the consequences. impugned order is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside......estate on the relevant date was a limited estate or an absolute estate in terms of sec. 14 of the hindu succession act.2. on the admitted facts that question does not arise at all. indisputably, the defendants who were off-springs of the second wife of the husband of the 1st defendant who was the third wife of one puttaiah who by a will had endowed certain properties on the third wife of the 1st defendant for her life time. when she was enjoying that property as on the date the hindu succession act came into force, the fact that the same property was accepted by her under a subsequent deed of settlement in terms of which a compromise decree was passed would not affect the nature and character of her possession which was in lieu of her maintenance. therefore, the character of a limited estate had not disappeared by virtue of the settlement deed in terms of sub-sec. (i) of sec. 14 of the hindu succession act. that limited estate on account of her possession as on the date of the coming into force of the act was, by operation of law, converted into her absolute estate-property.3. the question is really not res integra. the same has been decided by the supreme court in the.....
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The only question of law which could been in this second appeal was whether the 1st defendant's estate on the relevant date was a limited estate or an absolute estate in terms of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
2. On the admitted facts that question does not arise at all. Indisputably, the defendants who were off-springs of the second wife of the husband of the 1st defendant who was the third wife of one Puttaiah who by a will had endowed certain properties on the third wife of the 1st defendant for her life time. When she was enjoying that property as on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the fact that the same property was accepted by her under a subsequent deed of settlement in terms of which a compromise decree was passed would not affect the nature and character of her possession which was in lieu of her maintenance. Therefore, the character of a limited estate had not disappeared by virtue of the settlement deed in terms of sub-sec. (I) of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. That limited estate on account of her possession as on the date of the coming into force of the Act was, by operation of law, converted into her absolute estate-property.
3. The question is really not res integra. The same has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1944). The appeal is misconceived and it is dismissed.