Vasantha v Rajalakshmi

Introduction –

This is the very recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated February 13, 2024. The
bench was consisting of Hrishikesh Roy (J) and Sanjay Karol (J). The dispute in this case
started from 1947 which mainly focuses on the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 i.e.
Section 27 and Articles 58 and 65 of the First Schedule of the Act and Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. This case mostly deals with the Positive school of Jurisprudence.

Facts of the case –

- Thayammal, a lady, executed a settlement deed granting rights to her two sons for their
lives and to the two daughters of the elder son on 10 th of July 1947. The two sons were
namely – Raghavulu Naidu (elder son) and Munusamy Naidu (younger son). The two
daughters of elder son were Saroja and Rajalakshmi. Where Saroja died before
Thayammal and also her father and uncle in 1951.
- After this, on 31st July 1952 the two brothers, Raghavulu and Munusamy executed a
second settlement deed which reverting the said interest in properties back to their mother
– Thayammal.
- On 18th of August 1952, Thayammal executed third settlement deed, bequeathing absolute
interest in such a property in favor of her two sons only, which resulted in extinction of
the rights of Saroja and her husband – Gopalkrishnan.
- Here, Munusamy had no children and his wife Pavunammal was enjoying life interest in
the property bequeathed to her husband and they had an adopted daughter – Vasantha.
- In 1993, Gopalkrishnan filed a suit for declaration as the owner of the properties since, he
was the sole heir of the Saroja in the terms of the first settlement deed and this suit was
filed during the lifetime of the Pavunammal.

Decisions of the lower courts –

A. The Trial Court –

The Court found that the first settlement deed suggested by the plaintiff was genuine, but
plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit as he himself admitted the execution of second
settlement deed and that the possession was handed over to Thayammal. The court held
that the plaintiff cannot claim any rights in the suit property, therefore, the declaration
 cannot be made in respect of one-half of the defendant’s share in the suit property after
her lifetime would come to the plaintiff.
B. The First Appellate Court –
In this court, the judgement and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed and the appeal
was dismissed.
C. The High Court –
The High Court upheld the claim of the plaintiff over the property. The Court held that
according to the First Settlement Deed the plaintiff will be entitled to half share of the
property after the lifetime of Vasantha, a life estate holder.

After the decision of the High Court the appellant Vasantha moved to the Supreme Court to
overturn the decision of the High Court.

Appellants’ Arguments –

Appellant argued that,

- all the questions raised in this appeal are pure questions of law and in accordance with
Yashwant Deorao Deshmukh v Walchand Kothari;
- Gopalkrishnan lacked a cause of action as Ponuammal was alive when the suit was filed.
Even if the Gopalkrishnan’s interest was vested the same is not enforceable till her death.
Reference was made to Fateh Bibi v Charan Dass. In other words, till 2004 no rights
stood accrued in favour of the plaintiff. But when such right having accrued, no
application to amend the plaint was filed.
- The proviso of Section 34, SRA restricts the application of discretion of courts when the
complainant seeks only declaration of the title when he is able to seek the further relief.
Reference is made to Ram Saran v Ganga Devi.
- The succession to the estate only accrues on the death of the life estate holder, which was
in 2004; till date no suit stands file. (Article 65 read with section 27 of Limitations Act)
- The contingency upon which Saroja’s interest rests is two-fold – Munusamy either having
or not having a child, if there is a child it would get half share; if there is not then 2
eventualities exist – Saroja will get half share on Munusamy’s death and other half after
the life interest of Povunammal is exhausted.
- These arguments made by the appellant follow the positive law school as, these are based
on the pure pursuance of law. This school focuses on the formal rules and procedures
established by the legal authorities.
Respondents’ Arguments –

Respondent argued that,

- Saroja’s rights are vested as per section 19 of the TPA. A vested right once accrued cannot
be defeated by the death of the transferee before the possession. These rights were vested
in her by 1st settlement deed.
- The 2nd settlement deed was against the law and need not to be challenged.
- About the non-seeking of the relief within 12 years, it is submitted that the possession
was available only upon the death of Povunammal and since the suit is pending the
limitation for seeking possession is arrested and the plea of adverse possession will be
applicable only if the possession with the opposing party had become adverse on the
death of the plaint. (Tribhuvan v Amrutlal)
- None of the conditions mentioned in Section 126 TPA for suspension of settlement are
met in the present case, hence the settlement cannot be revoked.
- When the suit was filed Povunammal was alive and having life interest on the property.
Hence, the suit was filed only for the declaration and not for the possession.
- Section 213 of ISA is only applicable to the wills executed within the local limits of civil
jurisdiction of Bombay and Madras High Court.

Issues for the consideration –

1. Whether Gopalkrishnan’s suit for declaration based on the First Settlement Deed,
eventually filed in the year 1993 barred by limitation?
2. Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter was maintainable in view of Section 34 of
the SRA, 1963?

Judgement –

1. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit of Gopalkrishnan on the grounds of limitation.
2. The Court held that the Gopalakrishnan did not seek the relief of recovery of possession,
the suit was not maintainable as per the proviso of section 34 of SRA, 1963.

Analysis –

Analysis of issue I –

If the contention of the plaintiff that the second settlement deed was invalid, he ought to have
challenged the transfer caused thereby within 12 years of such a date. Other possibilities of
challenge arose in 1974, when Munusamy executed settlement deed in favor of his wife and
in 1976 when Povunammal executed the deed in favor of Vasantha. If at all plaintiff had a
right in disputed property then the period of limitation to challenge the adverse possession of
Vasantha started in 2004. Since, no suit for the same was filed; plaintiff’s claim was barred by
limitation.

If the period of limitation starts from the date of 2 nd settlement, then it gets extinguish in
1964. If the same starts from either 1974 or 1976 then it gets extinguish in 1986 or 1988
respectively. Hence, the plaintiff had no right in the property on the plea of adverse
possession. In Gopalkrishna case SC had observed that the reversioner ordinarily must file a
suit for possession within 12 years from the date of limited heir.

However, according to the respondents, since the suit was filed in respect of the property, the
clock of adverse possession stops clicking as referred in Tribhuvanshankar Case. Also, in
Sultan Khan v State of MP, it was held that if the suit for recovery of possession is filed
then the time period for adverse possession is arrested. But, in the present facts,
Gopalkrishnan had filed only a suit for declaration and not for possession. Hence, the result
of Sultan Khan Case doesn’t support the claim of respondents.

In Karnataka Board of Wakf v GOI, it was held that the plea of adverse possession is not a
pure question of law but a blend of fact and law.

In context of adverse possession there evolves a set of rights in favor of the adverse
possessor, who for a long period of time cared for the land and developed it, as against the
owner who ignored the property. And it is according to the rules of modern statute of
limitation. There is no period of limitation recognized under general law and therefore, any
time fixed by the statute is necessarily to be arbitrary.

It is clear from the records that the plaintiff had chances to claim the ownership and
possession on various occasions. But he failed to do so within limited period of time.

Analysis of Issue II –

According to the proviso of sec 34 of the SRA 1963, the suit of the plaintiff could not have
been decreed, as the plaintiff sought for just a declaration without claiming for possession.
The respondent contended that at the time of filing suit, Pavunallam was alive and she was
having life interest on the property. But according to the provision this thing doesn’t matter.
The only thing that matters is the claim of possession along with the claim of declaration.
And, the respondents also had the chance to amend the plaint for the relief of recovery of
possession. And this was also held in Vinay Krishna v Keshav Chandra. In Ram Saran v
Ganga Devi, it was held that the suit seeking for the declaration of title of ownership, but
where the possession is not sought is hit by the proviso of Sec 34 of SRA. And thus, it is not
maintainable.

Jurisprudential Aspect –

1. Natural Law School –

Natural law school is based on the principles of justice and morality. This school
emphasizes more on the principles of justice, morality and inherent human rights. In
this case, we can analyze whether the judgment aligns with the fundamental principles
of fairness and equality which is inherent in the Natural Law. Now, the Gopalkrishnan
didn’t got right and possession over property though, he was entitled to it. Hence, we
can say that the principles of equality and fairness was not followed which was against
the Natural Law School.
2. Positive School of Law –
The positive law school focuses on the formal rules and procedures established by the
legal authorities. We can examine in this particular case that, the judgement adheres
strictly to the positive laws, including the provisions of Specific Relief Act, Limitation
Act and precedents. The decision is based on the legal reasoning and statutory
interpretation than that of moral or philosophical consideration. Thus, the positive law
school is followed.
3. Legal Realism –
Salmond argued that, all law is not made by the legislature. According to him, it is to
the courts and not to the legislature that we must go in order ascertain the true nature of
law. Salmond defined law as the body of principles recognized and applied by the State
in the administration of justice, as the rules recognized and acted on by courts of
justice. Thus, by going through the judgment, we can conclude that the realistic school
of law is very well followed.
Future scope of the judgement –

This case will work like a guiding light and precedent in the cases regarding the property
dispute and succession which arose before 1956 i.e. before the commencement of Hindu
Succession Act. Also, it will be referred in the cases where the dispute arose are regarding to
the limitation act and specific relief act. The interpretation of the statutory provisions in this
case will be the source of law in the further cases.

Conclusion –

This case is the landmark judgement in the field of property disputes, period of limitation and
specific relief regarding to the same. The positive law school is followed in the judgement of
this case. And the appellant has also pleaded on the basis of principles of positive law school.