Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 14(1) – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Mere possession of property by a female, if sufficient to claim right u/s. 14(1) – Held: Mere possession would not confer pre-existing right of possession over the subject property to claim full ownership rights after the Act, 1956 came into force by operation of law – Section 14(1) clearly envisage that the possession of the female must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title or under any of the devise which has been purported under the law – On facts, claim of the appellant-daughter from the second marriage, that property orally gifted to her mother by her father in 1950, became her mother’s absolute property after the commencement of the 1956 Act, and Will executed by the father could not operate qua that property even if it is assumed to be valid, cannot be accepted – Appellant though was holding possession but not any valid possession over the subject property and opening of fiscal proceedings would not confer a right of acquisition by either of the devise which has been referred to under the explanation to s. 14(1).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court in the regular second appeal in separate proceedings initiated in reference to Will held to be validly executed and based on the recital of the Will, it was held that the plaintiffs became entitled to succeed to the entire property of Bdeceased including the land in dispute to the exclusion of defendant-appellant. The finding of fact recorded under the impugned judgment in reference to a later Will on which much emphasis was laid by the appellant, it was observed that the propounder of the Will was legally required not only to prove the due execution of the Will but also to dispel all suspicious circumstances which may have existed in its due execution of the said Will and it was observed that the later Will claimed by the present appellant cannot be taken to be duly proved and being a finding of fact duly supported by the material on record, there is no perversity or manifest error in the finding to be reviewed by this Court in the instant appeal. [Para 13][450-D-G]
1.2 The mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. At the same time, the effect of a declaratory decree to restore the property alienated to the estate of the alienor and until and unless the alienees are able to convince the court that they have no subsisting interest in the property, the heirs of the alienees would be entitled to the benefits of the property as per the law of succession. The effect of the operation of the said declaratory decree would be to restore the land in dispute to the said estate of B-deceased and the succession would be deemed to have opened on 27.03.1973 when B died. On his death, the estate left behind him including the land in dispute would devolve upon his heirs as per their entitlement and after the registered Will dated 5.01.1973 has been upheld by the High Court and attained finality, its consequence was to follow accordingly. [Para 14][450-G-H; 451-A-C]
1.3 The submission of the appellant that the appellant being in possession of the subject property in question at the time when Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and by virtue of Section 14(1) became an absolute owner of the subject property and the decree being a nullity is inexecutable and it is a jurisdictional error against the policy of legislature, cannot be accepted since Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 clearly envisage that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title or under any of the devise which has been purported under the law. In the instant case, the appellant was not holding any valid possession over the subject property and opening of fiscal proceedings would not confer a right of acquisition by either of the devise which has been referred to under the explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. [Para 15][451-C-E]
THR. LRS.
1.4 In the instant case, the appellant although was holding possession but not under any of the devise referred to under explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 and mere possession would not confer pre-existing right of possession over the subject property to claim full ownership rights after the Act, 1956 came into force by operation of law and this what was considered and negated by the High Court in the impugned judgment. [Para 20][456-E-F]
Eramma v. Veerupana and Others AIR 1996 SC 1879 ; V. Tulasamma and Others v. Sesha Reddy(Dead) by LRs (1977) 3 SCC 99 : [1977] 3 SCR 261
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.