Case title: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS VS. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS.
Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8616 OF 2017
Order on: April 9, 2024
Qoram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE WITH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Fact of the case:
In this case, Plaintiff Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu claiming a share of the property. He has since passed away, and his descendants are now representing him. Now Sankaran is Chandu’s half-brother, son of their mother Chiruthey from her first marriage to Madhavan. And Chiruthey is Mother of Sankaran and Chandu. She married twice, first to Madhavan and then to Neelakandan after Madhavan’s death. Madhavan is Chiruthey’s first husband and Sankaran’s father and Neelakandan is Chiruthey’s second husband and Chandu’s father. The property in dispute is located in the village of Eravattur, Kozhikode district, Kerala. In 1900 Madhavan and his mother Nangeli took a loan and mortgaged the property but didn’t give possession to the lender. In 1910 Two important transactions happened on the same day; First Transaction was Chiruthey, along with Nangeli and her son Sankaran (who was a minor), leased the property to Cherupula Othayoth Cheriya Amma and her son Achuthan. And the Second Transaction happened on the same day, Cherupula Othayoth Cheriya Amma leased the property back to Chiruthey and another person named Kuttiperavan. In 1925 Kuttiperavan gave up his lease rights to Chiruthey and Sankaran. The plaintiff (Chandu) claimed 8/20 shares in the suit property, asserting the property was derived from his mother, Chiruthey.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether Chiruthey had any title over the suit property.
Legal provisions:
Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856: Section 2: A widow loses her right to her deceased husband’s property upon remarriage.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellants argued that Chiruthey lost all her rights to Madhavan’s property when she remarried Neelakandan. Therefore, Chandu (her son from the second marriage) had no claim to the property. They contended that the various deeds signed by Chiruthey should be invalid because she had no legal right to the property after remarrying.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondents argued that the property should be partially owned by Chandu as he inherited rights from his mother, Chiruthey. They claimed she had ownership or lease rights that transferred to her son. They asserted that the deeds signed by Chiruthey, including the lease transactions, were valid and demonstrated her rights to the property.
Court analysis & Judgement:
The court beheld at the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act of 1856, which states that a widow loses her rights to her deceased husband’s property if she remarries. The court found that this applied to Chiruthey. When she remarried Neelakandan, she lost all her rights to Madhavan’s property. The court found that the 1910 lease deeds were valid because they were signed by Nangeli (Madhavan’s mother) and Sankaran (Madhavan’s son). These deeds only gave lease rights, not ownership, and were valid for 12 years. The court examined the 1925 deed where Kuttiperavan gave up his lease rights to Chiruthey and Sankaran. It found that this deed did not extend any ownership rights beyond the original lease term. The court determined that since Chiruthey lost her rights to the property upon remarriage, Chandu could not claim ownership through her. The leases she signed did not give her or her descendants ownership rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that Chandu and his successors could not claim any ownership of the property. The court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed Chandu’s claim. Therefore, the appeal by Sankaran’s successors was allowed, and Chandu’s claim to the property was rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
Click to view the full judgement
