# MUTHUSWAMI NADAR AND ORS v. RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 12
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-11-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 1981
- **Bench:** Faizan Uddin, Sujata V. Manohar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/muthuswami-nadar-and-ors-v-ramakrishnan-nadar-and-ors-13501
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956: Section 26.
Unmarried so1t-Death-l'rope1ty-Devolution 011 mother-Death of
C mother-Devolution of property 011 her daughters-Sale deed executed by
daughters-Held valid.
A partition suit filed by the appellants on the basis of two sale deeds
executed in their favour by R and M was contested by the respondents on
the ground that the sale deeds were invalid. The Trial Court held that sale
D effected by both the vendors was valid as they had inherited an interest in
land from their mother, K. The first Appellate Court held that vendors'
mother, who was a christian, could not have succeeded to the property of
her son U who died as a Hindu. The High Court aflirmed the judgment of
the First Appellate Court. Hence this appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The First Appellate Court had wrongly assumed that
vendor's mother K had converted into christianity. It is an admitted fact
that she was Hindu till she died in the year 1957. On the death of her
F
unmarried son U his share devolved on her. After her death succession to
her property will be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which
came into force. That being so, her two daughters will be entitled to the .
property left by their mother because a convert's descendants only are
disqualified under Section 20. Therefore, sales effected by Rand M would
G be valid. [13-F-H, 14-A]

## Text

A
MUTHUSWAMI NADAR AND ORS.
v.
RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 30, 1995
B
[FAIZAN UDDIN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956: Section 26.
Unmarried so1t-Death-l'rope1ty-Devolution 011 mother-Death of
C mother-Devolution of property 011 her daughters-Sale deed executed by
daughters-Held valid.
A partition suit filed by the appellants on the basis of two sale deeds
executed in their favour by R and M was contested by the respondents on
the ground that the sale deeds were invalid. The Trial Court held that sale
D effected by both the vendors was valid as they had inherited an interest in
land from their mother, K. The first Appellate Court held that vendors'
mother, who was a christian, could not have succeeded to the property of
her son U who died as a Hindu. The High Court aflirmed the judgment of
the First Appellate Court. Hence this appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The First Appellate Court had wrongly assumed that
vendor's mother K had converted into christianity. It is an admitted fact
that she was Hindu till she died in the year 1957. On the death of her
F
unmarried son U his share devolved on her. After her death succession to
her property will be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which
came into force. That being so, her two daughters will be entitled to the .
property left by their mother because a convert's descendants only are
disqualified under Section 20. Therefore, sales effected by Rand M would
G be valid. [13-F-H, 14-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1607 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.86 of the Madro' High
H Court in C.A. No. 1977 of 1977.
12
•
..
MUTIIUSWAMI NADAR v. RAMAKR!SHNAN NADAR
13
K. V. Mohan for the Appellants.
V. Balachandran, K.R. Choudhary, (NP) and S. Arvind for the
Respondents.
The following O_rder of the Court was delivered :
This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs has been directed against
the judgment dated 16th December, 1986 passed by the High Court of
Madras in Second Appeal No. 1977 of 1977, affirming the judgment of the
first Appellate Court dated 9.9.1977 whereby the judgment and degree
passed by the Trial Court were reversed. The plaintiffs-appellants had
instituted the suit for partition of the suit land on the basis of the three
Sale Deeds one of which is said to have been executed by Inkupillai and
Muthupillai - sons of Perumal in respect of their shares, in favour of the
third appellant. The two other Sale Deeds were executed by Rosammal
A
B
c
and Mariammal, in favour of the first appellant and. the second appellant D
respectively. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that
Rosammal and Mariammal did not inherit any interest in the land and,
· 'f'
therefore, Sale Deeds executed by them were invalid. The Trial Court on
evaluation of the evidence took the view that the vendors of the plaintiffs
had inherited an interest in the land in question and. therefore, the sales
E
effected by them were valid. These findings were reversed by the first
Appellate Court on the assumption that Kochammal - the mother of
Rosammal and Mariammal was a Christian and, therefore, she could not
succeed to the property of Kumaraswami, her sons, who died as a Hindu.
But on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we find that the learned
First Appellate Court had wrongly assumed that Kochammal - the mother
of Rosammal and Mariammal had converted into Christianity. On the
contrary, we find that it is an admitted fact that she was a Hindu till she
died in the year 1957.
F
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on the death of G
Kumaraswami on (23.7.1864)
share of Kumaraswami devolved on his
mother Kochammal, according to Mitakshara Law because, Kumaraswami
died unmarried. After the death of Kochammal in the year 1957 succession
to her property will be governed by the Hindu Succesion Act which came
into force in 1854 and that being so, her two daughters will be entitled to H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
the property left by their mother because a. convert descendants only are
disqualified under Section 20 of the Hindu Succession Act. In these facts
and circumstances, sales effected by Rosammal ad Mariammal would be
valid. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and the High Court
B are set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored. No costs.
Substitution application is allowed.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.