Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2010

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Order Date: 28.08.2023

Facts of the Case:

• The appellants had initiated a suit in 1988 before the Court of Principal Munsif, Kozhikode, Kerala, seeking partition and mesne profits for ancestral property comprising Items 1 & 2 in Plaint Schedule A, totaling 33 ½ cents and 42 cents respectively.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1993, ruling that the land with the house sought for partition was agricultural and thus not claimable by the plaintiffs. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and further by the High Court of Kerala in 2009, resulting in the appellants’ losses in all lower courts.
• The parties were from the “Thiyyas” community in Kozhikode, Kerala, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. The dispute revolved around ancestral property devolution, primarily on male children, with daughters having maintenance rights until marriage. The case predated the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The plaintiffs sought partition of a 75 ½ cents property, including an ancestral house. The trial court dismissed the claim, citing that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, didn’t apply to agricultural land before its 1946 amendment. The trial court ruled that the succession had opened in 1942, predating the amendment.
• The property belonged to Sami Vaidyar, passing to his son Sukumaran after his death in 1942. The plaintiffs claimed rights through Choyichi, Sami Vaidyar’s widow. They argued for rights under Hindu Mitakshara law and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, culminating in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and Second Appellate Court all held that Choyichi, not having possession, couldn’t claim rights under Section 14(1). The courts found the property agricultural and ruled in favor of the defendants.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed and Held as Follows:

• The court delved into the relevant laws of the time and noted that agricultural property was subject to devolution upon male heirs and that daughters and widows were entitled only to maintenance. Importantly, the court underlined the significance of a family settlement deed dated 12th March 1938, which allocated the disputed property to Sami Vaidyar and his sole son, Sukumaran. This allocation rendered Choyichi, the widow of Sami Vaidyar, ineligible for any rights over the property. Lower courts had unanimously endorsed this position.
• The Court while acknowledging that “theaattam” designation theoretically allowed for agricultural use, the court emphasized that this designation did not inherently translate to agricultural cultivation. Nonetheless, based on the extensive and thoroughly evaluated evidence by the lower courts, the court concluded that the land’s classification as agricultural was justified. Therefore, the argument presented before the court held no grounds for a divergent perspective.
• The court highlighted that although special leave was granted to hear the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, it emphasized that even with such leave granted and appeal admitted, the appellants were required to demonstrate exceptional and compelling circumstances to overturn established findings. The court asserted that no such circumstances were evident in this case.
• Furthermore, the court underscored the undisputed possession of the property by the defendants throughout the proceedings. Notably, the finding of adverse possession in favor of the defendants by the Trial Court had remained unchallenged by the plaintiffs/appellants before the First Appellate Court. This crucial aspect further contributed to the dismissal of the appeal, as the appellants had not contested this finding at the appropriate stage.
• The Court held that the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have been reaffirmed in second appeal by the High Court, yet by and large the entire submissions of the appellants is nothing but a persuasion before the Court for reappraisal of the case on facts.
• In view of the above discussion, the Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had been affirmed by the High Court in the second appeal dated 29.01.2009. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed, and the order granting status quo by the Court dated 06.01.2010 was revoked. In line with its decision, the court ordered no costs to be awarded.