TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was passed on July 13, 1955. Under the compromise decree, the property bequeathed in favour of the respondent, Ranganayakamma was affirmed. The properties sold by the appellant to the third party also was affirmed. The balance property was partitioned in equal shares of 6.5 acres with a right of reversion to the appellant on the demise of Raghavamma. Subsequently, on April 25, 1959, the appellant had executed another gift deed to an extent of 1.50 acres of land in favour of third party jointly with his mother wherein she acknowledged that the property had by Raghavamma under compromise decree under Ex. A-11 was conferred with a limited interest in terms thereof. Thereby, she had acknowledged that she had a life interest in the properties had under the compromise decree. Equally, the appellant had executed another gift deed to an extent of 1.97 acres bequeathing under Ex.A-4 in favour of his mother to enjoy the property during her life time as limited owner. She accepted, acted on and enjoyed for life. This was also pursuant to the compromise decree under Ex.A-11. Therein also she had acknowledged that she had life interest in the compromise decree under Ex.A-11. After the estate wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest in terms of the compromise decree, Ex.A-11 which recites that she has life interest and on her demise the property would revert back to the first appellant, the will executed by her is neither valid nor binds the appellant. In that view of the matter and in the light of the patta granted by the Settlement Officer under Section 15 of the Act, the view taken by the High Court is not correct and the suit itself is not maintainable. The right under Section 14(2) will be only restricted right and, therefore, she has no right to will away the property had by her under Ex.A-11 in favour of the respondent. 6. Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the compromise decree is dated July 30, 1955, i.e. anterior to the coming into force of the Succession Act. It is only in recognition of her pre-existing right, though her husband had executed a will under which he had bequeathed 2.66 acres for her life towards maintenance which will she did not accept. On the other hand, in assertion of her right as a widow's estate in her husband's property, she filed the suit for partition of the property in two equal shares between herse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, if the acquisition of the property attracts Sub-section (1) of Section 14, Sub-section (2) does not come into play. If the acquisition is for the first time, without any vestige of pre-existing right under the instrument, document or device etc., then Sub-section (2) of Section 14 gets attracted. Sub-section (2) being in the nature of an exception, it does not engulf and wipe out the operation of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 14 independently operates in its own sphere. The right to disposition of property by a Hindu under Section 30 is required to be understood in this perspective and if any attempt is made to put restriction upon the property possessed by a Hindu female under an instrument, document or device, though executed after the Act had come into force, it must be interpreted in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case and to construe whether Hindu female acquired or possessed the property in recognition of her preexisting right or she gets the rights for the first time under the instrument without any vestige of pre-existing right. If the answer is in the positive, Sub-section (1) of Section 14 gets attracted. Thus construed, both Sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the compromise decree, Ex. A-11. was a limited right with the provision that the property would revert to her son, the first appellant. Thus it could be seen that she had admitted that she had only limited right acquired for the first time under the compromise decree. Thereby, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act and not Sub-section (1) of Section 14 stands attracted. That apart, even the Settlement Officer has passed an order granting ryotwari patta under Section 15 of the Abolition Act which became final. 15. This Court in Vatticherukuri Village Panchayat v. Nori Vnkatarama Deekshithulu and Ors. [1991] Supp 2 SCC 288, after considering the entire case law, had held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the patta granted by the Settlement Authorities. Under Section 9, CPC, the Courts shall, subject to the provisions contained therein, have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. When a legal right is infringed, a suit would lie unless there is a bar against entertainment of such civil suit and the civil Court would take cognizance of it. Therefore, the normal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the statute creates a special right or liability and provides procedure for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right or liability shall be determined by the Tribunal so constituted and whether remedies is normally associated with the action in civil Courts or prescribed by the statutes or not. Therefore, each case requires examination whether the statute provides right and remedies and whether the scheme of the Act is that the procedure provided will be conclusive and thereby excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect thereof. After the advent of independence, the land reforms was one of the policies of the Government abolishing feudal system of land tenures and conformant of the Ryotwari patta on the tiller of the soil. Thereby, the land reform laws extinguish pre-existing rights and create new rights under the Act. The Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunals in matters relating thereto and hierarchy or appeal/revisions are provided thereunder giving finality to the orders passed thereunder. Thereby, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to take cognizance of the suits of ci....