Lakkawwa Vs. Gourawwa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[m.p. chandrakantaraj, j.] registration act; code of civil procedure (cpc) - section 100; hindu succession act - section 14(1) -- "whether the valuation made is proper and court-fee paid is sufficient ? ( 5 ) there was no difficulty in finding in favour of the plaintiff on the first issue as the execution of the document was admitted by the first defendant. on issue no. 3, the court recorded a finding in her favour having regard to subsection (1) of section 14 of the hindu succession act. on issue no. 2 it held in her favour because the instrument exhibit p 1, the family arrangement itself was evidence of her possession coupled with the fact the defendant who pleaded partition subsequently neither produced any pahani extract showing possession and cultivation of the land by the fourth respondent nor proved the partition itself. chandrakantaraj, j.( 1 ) this second appeal is by the 4th defendant in the original suit brought by the plaintiff in o. s. 97 of 1985 in the court of the munsiff at saundatt.( 2 ) plaintiff wanted declaration of her title to the suit schedule property based on the deed of settlement dated 21-6-1979 (family arrangement), executed by defendant-1, head of the family, at the relevant time-kartha or manager, as part of the settlement in her favour on account of her marriage to the third defendant, one of the sons of the first defendant and brother of defendant-2. defendant-3 being the son of the 4th defendant and the wife of the first defendant. the plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property comprised in block no. 386 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas situate within mudanagere village in belgaum district. she also prayed in the alternative in the event court were to come to the conclusion that she was not in possession, for a decree for possession to be passed.( 3 ) the defendants resisted the suitinter alia contending that plaintiff acquired no right, title or interest in the suit document or title deed. in any event, though defendant-1 admitted execution of the document, it was only a family arrangement which created only a file interest in the plaintiff and it could not be considered as instrument of title as the document or the instrument was not a registered instrument. they also pleaded that subsequently in 1985 there was a partition and the fourth defendant had been allotted and put in possession of the suit schedule property.( 4 ) on such pleading, the trial court framed as many as six issues :-1. whether plaintiff proves that the first defendant executed an agreement on 21 6-1979 in her favour and gave the suit land block no. 386 for her maintenance during her life time ?2. whether she further proves that he handed over possession of the suit land to her ?3. whether she further proves that she has become the owner of the suit land ?"4. whether she is entitled for possession of suit land ?5. whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit ?6. "whether the valuation made is proper and court-fee paid is sufficient ?( 5 ) there was no difficulty in finding in favour of the plaintiff on the first issue as the execution of the document was admitted by the first defendant. on issue no. 3, the court recorded a finding in her favour having regard to subsection (1) of section 14 of the hindu succession act. on issue no. 2 it held in her favour because the instrument exhibit p 1, the family arrangement itself was evidence of her possession coupled with the fact the defendant who pleaded partition subsequently neither produced any pahani extract showing possession and cultivation of the land by the fourth respondent nor proved the partition itself. in that circumstance, the suit came to be decreed.( 6 ) on appeal the judgment of the trial-court has been affirmed. therefore, the present second appeal.( 7 ) the pure and important question of law which the learned counsel commended for consideration of this court was that the document could not have been admitted in evidence as it was a document which conveyed title to immovable property the value of which exceeded rs. 100/ -. the courts-below turned down that argument solely on the ground that plain language and reading of the same giving ordinary and plain "meaning to the words employed would indicate that the document was the family arrangement which did not require registration under the registration act. the evidence of p. w. 1 herself as well as p. w. 2 clinched that issue. having regard to the law declared by the supreme court in the case of v. sulasamma v v. sesha reddi (air 1977 sc 1944), the widest latitude must be given for the operation of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the hindu succession act, as limited estate acquired by lady before or after commencement of the act would create in her an absolute right in the property. any exception created under sub-section (2) of section 14 must be read down if necessary in order to give effect to the legislative intent and to give more meaning to content to the class of women who were sought to be benefited by the legislation.( 8 ) in that view of the matter, both on questions of law relating to requirement of registhinration as well as the benefit accruing in favour of the plaintiff under section 14 (1) are no longer res integra. as such no substantial question of law really arises for consideration in this second appeal.( 9 ) all other matters urged by mr. raya reddy relate to the findings recorded by the trial-court and affirmed by the appellate court in regard to findings of facts with which this court exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the code of civil procedure is not concerned with. in the result, appeal is dismissed. appeal dismissed.