Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-04-03 dismissed

Gopalakrishna (D) by Lrs. & Ors vs Narayanagowda (dead) by Lrs. & Ors

Bench: 2 — K.M. Joseph

In Brief

Ramanna died in 1907 owning properties, survived by widow Seethamma and daughter Venkamma. Seethamma sold the property to her brother Srinivasa Rao in 1913, who later sold it to the respondents in 1954. Venkamma's daughter Jankamma sold the same property to the appellants' father and the second plaintiff in 1955. The appellants sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Supreme Court held that under Hindu law, Seethamma held only a limited estate as widow (since Ramanna had a surviving daughter), so her sale was not binding on reversioners. However, reversioners must recover possession within 12 years from the widow's death (1938), a deadline that expired in 1950—well before the 1975-1986 suits were filed. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation and the appellants could not recover possession.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Hindu Law Succession Law Limited Estate Widow's Estate Limitation Adverse Possession Transfer of Property Recovery of Possession Reversionary Rights

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login