SAGI SURAYAMMA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
LAWS(APH)-1969-4-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 15,1969

SAGI SURAYAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NARINDI MAHALAKSHMAIAH VS. KOMATI BASAVAMRNA [LAWS(APH)-1983-11-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appeal by one of the claimants in O P. No. 63/60 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, against the order denying her claim with regard to the compensation granted in the Land Acquisition Proceedings.
(2.)Ac. 5-76 cents of land situated in the village of Injaram in Kakinada Taluk was notified and acquired by the Government for the purposes of providing house sites for Harijans of Merakamalapalli village. Out of this, Ac. 0-94 cents at the time of acquisition be. longed to one Surayyamma the second claimant. With regard to the compensation deposited, as her husband's brother Suryanarayana Raju contested her claim, a reference was made to the Land Acquisition Court-cum-Subordinate Judge, K.kinada under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. With regard to the facts of the case, thtre is no dispute. This land acquired, formed part of the lands allotted to her by the court under a compromise decree. She had filed the suit O.S 110/53 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, K.kinada for partition of the plaint schedule lands into seven equal shares and allotting one share to her, contending that the defendants, six in number, and her late husband Chitmamraju are the sons of Sagi Venkatasubharaju and that her husband died in 1943 as a member of the Joint Family leaving behind him herself and a min or son Venkata pathiraju, that in the year 1947 the members of the joint family divided and partitioned their family movables, but the cultivation was being done jointly and income was being divided, she being given 1/7th snare, towards the share of her son, that her son died in October. 1949 intestate, unmarried and issueless and therefore she is entitled to the 1/7rh share as his heir. This suit was contested on the ground that there was no division of the joint family and as such she has no right to claim 1/7 th share as heir to her son. The suit resulted in a compromise, whereunder the plaintiff was given possession of her 1/7th share as claimed by her, but it was stipulated that she shall be in enjoyment of the properties delivered to her having only the rights of a Hindu widow in them and they shall pass to the defendants or their representatives after her death. One other clause added was as follows
"If any item or portions in the D schedule below is acquired by the Government the plaintiff and defendants shall purchase another property with consent with the amount got thereby and the plaintiff shall enjoy the same during her life time and after her death it shall pass to the defendants ; or if the defendants give to the plaintiff some other properties in lieu of the properties so acquired and equivalent to it acd make proper arrangements for being enjoyed by her during her life time, it is agreed that the defendants shall take the compensation amount."
The property now acquired by the Government is part of the properties allotted to her share and in her possession. The contenttion of the first claimant Suryanarayana Raju, one of her husband's brothers is that the above clause applies to the compensation amount deposited by the Government and as such she is only entitled to the purchase of another plot of equivalent value and not to the compensation amount. The contention of the second claimant i. e. Surayamma is that under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, her rights in the property got enlarged ail as she has become a full owner, the clause in the agreement will not apply and she is entitled to take the amount. The Subordinate judge held that section 14 (2) of the Succession Act applies and not Section 14(1) and dis allowing her claim for the entire compensation tn monies, directed that the monies should be invested in the purchase of properties of equal value. Hence this appeal.
(3.)The first contention raised is that the cimpromise decree which is not appealable and which can only be set aside on grounds of fraud and undue influence etc., is binding on both the parties and the second claimant cannot get over the same. This contention overlooks the effect of the subsequent statutory rights acquired by the second claimant under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, inspite of the compromise decree entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act in 1956. If under the decree she acquires a right in the property which fall-? under Section 14 (1) of the Act, her rights get erlarped. The clause relating to herself and the defendants purchasing another property with the amount of compensation, if the land is acquired by Government, of equivalent value and the further clause that she has only the rights of a Hindu Widow in the entire property are all subject to her subsequent rights that she may acquire under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Those clauses were introduced with regard to her rights as they then stood. She cannot be denied the subsequent enlargement of her rights under the statute, Therefore this contention that she is bound by the compromise decree is not tenable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.