Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.14 – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Hindu widow – Right to hindu undivided property – Held: Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife – Where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her preexisting right of maintenance – Word “possessed by” and “acquired” used in s. 14(1) are of the widest amplitude and include the state of owning a property – It is by virtue of s.14(1), that the Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged into an absolute right, when such property is possessed by her whether acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance – On facts, defendant no.1-hindu widow was staying in the suit property before the death of her uncle-inlaw, and after his death was in possession and in charge of the said property, and was paying the house tax prior to 1956 and was collecting the rent from the tenants in the suit property prior to and after 1956 – In view of her pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband and in view of her exclusive settled possession of the suit property prior to and after the commencement of the 1956 Act, the defendant no.1 had acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of s. 14(1) – Thus, the High Court rightly held that defendant no 1 had pre-existing right to maintenance in the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the plain reading of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 along with the Explanation thereto, it emerges that in order to become a full owner and not a limited owner, of a property by virtue of Section 14(1), a female Hindu, before or after the commencement of Act of 1956, must be in possession of the property, and it must have been acquired by her by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance, or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, or any such property must have been held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of the Act. [Paras 10-11][889-H; 890-A-B]
1.2 In the instant case, the concern is with the claim of defendant no.1 of having become the full owner in respect of the suit property on the ground that she was in settled legal possession of the suit property before and after the commencement of the Act, in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance, and such limited ownership right had fructified into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1). The Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 conferred right on Hindu widow to the property of her husband, who died after the commencement of the said Act of 1937 and not prior thereto. Defendant no.1’s husband having expired in 1936, the said Act of 1937 would not be applicable to facts of the case. However, prior to the said Act of 1937, the right to maintenance of Hindu widow was recognised in Shastric law. [Para 12][890-C-F]
1.3 Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of the said property. She is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance. Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by the said legislation. The words “possessed by” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property, even though the Hindu woman is not in actual or physical possession of the same. Of course, it is equally well settled that the possession of the widow, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser without any right or title. [Para 14][895-B-D]
1.4 In the instant case, the husband of defendant no.1 expired in 1936, GN, the father-in-law of defendant no.1 expired in 1938 and HR, the brother of GN died in 1953. Plaintiff was adopted by SB in the year 1916. HR, GN and SB had common ancestor GP. It is also not disputed that the suit property was an ancestral property in the hands of HR and GN. It is also not disputed that defendant no.1 was staying in the suit property before the death of HR, and after his death she was in possession and in charge of the said property, and was maintaining herself by collecting rent from the tenants who were occupying part of the suit property. [Para 15][895-D-F]
1.5 It clearly emerges that defendant no.1 was paying the house tax prior to 1956 and was collecting the rent from the tenants prior to and after 1956. Pertinently from the document Exhibit-54, it emerges that in 1940 defendant no.1, when she was staying with her in-laws, had no source of maintenance, and therefore she was granted Rs. 2.50 per month by way of maintenance, by the Punya Department of the Government. She claiming to be a PARDANASHEEN lady had authorised the plaintiff to collect the said amount of maintenance. The said document clearly shows that defendant no.1 was residing in the suit house since 1940. It was well established that defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit house before and after the death of HR in 1953 and had continued to remain in possession thereafter and was collecting rent from the tenants who were in occupation of part of the suit premises since 1955, till the date of filing of the suit in 1965 by the plaintiff. [Para 17][896-C-E]
1.6 It is clearly established that defendant no.1 had long settled possession of the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act. Her exclusive possession of suit property after the death of HR in 1953 i.e., prior to coming into force of the said Act in 1956, was not only not disputed but was admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint itself. Her pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband was also well established. Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with her settled legal possession of the property, would be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a vestige of right or claim in the property, though no document was executed or specific charge was created in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in the property. [Para 18][896-E-H; 897-A-B]
1.7 In the Will executed by HR in favour of the plaintiff, there was no mention of the suit property. What was stated in the Will was that whatever movable and immovable property, which belonged to HR would be devolved upon the plaintiff. It was only in the Probate proceedings filed by the plaintiff in respect of the said Will, he had shown the suit property in the Schedule. It is true that the objections raised by the defendant no.1 against granting of Probate in favour of the plaintiff were not accepted by the Probate Court, and the alleged Will executed by HR in favour of the defendant no.1 was also not proved by her in the said proceedings. Nonetheless, in view of her pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband and in view of her exclusive settled possession of the suit property prior to and after the commencement of the Act of 1956, the only conclusion which could be drawn, would be that the defendant no.1 had acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act of 1956. [Para 19][897-B-E]
1.8 A Hindu woman’s right to maintenance was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity. The Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the Shastric Hindu Law, long before the passing of the 1937 and the 1946 Acts. Those Acts merely gave statutory backing recognising the position as was existing under the Shastric Hindu Law. Where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her preexisting right of maintenance. The word “possessed by” and “acquired” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest amplitude and include the state of owning a property. It is by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, that the Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged into an absolute right, when such property is possessed by her whether acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance. The High Court rightly held that defendant no.1 had pre-existing right to maintenance in the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956. [Para 20, 21][897-E-H; 898-A]
V. Tulasamma and Ors. vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. (1977) 3 SCC 99 : [1977] 3 SCR 261 – relied on.
Ram Vishal (Dead) & Ors. by Lrs. v. Jagan Nath & Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 302; Dindayal & Anr. v. Rajaram (1970)
1 SCC 786 : [1971] 1 SCR 298; Sadhu Singh v.
Gurdwara Sahib Narike (2006) 8 SCC 75 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 799; Shrimati Rani Bai v. Shri Yadunandan Ram & Anr. (1969) 1 SCC 604 : [1969] 3 SCR 789; Mst. Gaumati v. Shankar Lal AIR 1974 Raj. 147; Mool Kanwar v. Jeewa Lal AIR 1982 Raj. 267; Bai Vajia (Dead) by Lrs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai and Others (1979) 3 SCC 300 : [1979] 3 SCR 291; Raghubar Singh & Ors v. Gulab Singh & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 314 : [1998]
3 SCR 555 – 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.