1996 Supreme(SC) 228

1996(2) SUPREME 720
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad And G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
C. Masilamani Mudaliar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17396 of 1992)
Decided on 30-1-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
Any instrument, document, device etc. under which Hindu female came to possess the property-movable or immovable- in recognition of her pre-existing right, though such instrument, document or device is worded with a restrictive estate, which received the colour of pre-existing restrictive estate possession by a Hindu female, the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 read wiht Explanation I, Hindu Succession Act, remove the fetters and the limited right blossoms into an absolute right.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 14 (1) and 30-Women s right-Will bequeathing suit properties to his wife and his counsin s widow-Testator stated that after his lifetime two legatees would be entitled to take possession of properties and enjoy the same without any right to alienate and to perform the chareties-Testator died in 1950-Whether his widow had become the absolute owner, by operation of Section 14 (1) ?-(Yea)-Doctrine of proportionality of maintenance not applicable-Harmonious interpretation.

       (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 14 (1), 14 (2) and 30-Right to disposition of property by a Hindu under section 30-If a Hindu female acquired or possessed property in recognition of her pre-existing right-Sub-section (1) of Section 14 gets attracted-Harmonious interpretation is required to be adopted in giving effect to provisions consistent with constitutional anemation to remove gendre based discrimination. (Paras 14 & 15)

       Held : The right to equality removing handicaps and discrimination against a Hindu female by reason of operation of exisiting law should be in conformity with the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution with the Constitutional goal. Harmonious interpretation, therefore, is required to be adopted in giving effect to the relevant provisions consistent with the consitiutional animation to remove gender-based discrimination in matters of marriage, succession etc. Congnizant to these constitutional goals, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Hindu Succession Act etc. have been brought on statute removing the impediments which stood in the way under the Sastric law. Explanation I to Section 14 (1) gives wide amplitude to the acquisition of property in the widest terms. It is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. The only condition precedent is whether Hindu female has a per-existing right under the personal law or any other law to hold the property or the right to property. Any instrument, documnet, device etc. under which Hindu female came to possess the property- movable or immovable - in recognition of her pre-existing right, though such instrument, document or device is worded with a restrictive estate, which received the colour of pre-existing restrictive estate possession by a Hindu female, the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Explanation I, remove the fetters and the limited right blossoms into an absolute right. (Para 14)

       Further held : The right to disposition of property by a Hindu under Section 30 is required to be understood in this Section 30 is required to be understood in this perspective and if any attempt is made to put restriction upon the property possessed by a Hindu female under an instrument, document or device, though executed after the Act had come into force, It must be interpreated in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case and to consture whether Hindu female acquired or possessed the property in recognition of her pre-existing right or she gets the rights for the first time under the instrument without any vestige of pre-existing right. If the answer is in the positive, sub-section (1) of Section 14 gets attracted. Thus construed, both sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 will be given their full play without rendering either as otios or aids as means of avoidance. (Para 15)

       Held : The legatee Settathachi had right to maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act when the property was given to her for maintenance. It must be in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and the property given under the will, therefore, must be constured to have been acquired by the legatee under the will in lieu of her right to maintenance. That right to maintenance to a Hindu female received statutory recognition under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. She is entitled to realise maintenance from property of her husband and even in the hands of strangers except the bona fide purchasers for value whether notice of her right. She is equally entitled under Section 37 of the Transfer of Property Act to have charge created over the property for relisation of her maintenance. . On the demise of the testator, she being the class-I heir but for the bequeath, is entitled to succeed as an absolute owner. In either of those circumstances, the question emerges whether she acquires a limited right under Section 14 (2) for the first time under the Will. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal setting, we are of the considered view that she having had under Sastric law, as envisaged in the Will, the properties in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance, it is not a right acquired for the first time under the instrument will, but it is a reflection of the pre-existing right under the Sastric law, which was blossomed into an absolute ownership after 1956 under Section 14 (1) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that Sellathachi acquired the right to maintenance for the first time under the instrument will. The Division Bench, therefore, does not appear to have approached the problem in the correct perspective. In view of the settled legal position right from Tulasamma a case (supra) the right acquired under the Will is in recognition of the pre-existing right to maintenance known under the Sastric law and was transformed into an absolute right under Section 14 (1) wiped out the restrictive estate given the Sastric law and Sellathachi as absolute owner of the property. The Division bench of the High Court, therefore, was not correct in holding that Sellathachi has acquired only a limited estate under the Will and Section 14 (2) attracts to the restrictive covenants contained in the will limiting her right to maintenance for life time and, thereafter, the right to enjoy the income from the lands and on her demise, the income should go to the temples as mentioned in the will is not correct in law. (Para 17)

       Further held that under the pre-existing law, she is entitled to remain in possession of the whole estate known as widow s estate and after the Act has come into force that widow s estate was blossomed into an absolute estate by operation of Section 14 (1). Even in the Will Ex-A1, no such restrictive covenant was engrafted giving reasonable proportion of income consistent with her needs for maintenance. On the other hand, the express covenant is that, he recognised her right to maintenance and in lieu of the maintenance property was given to her for her maintenance during her lifetime. That is the pre-existing right as per then existing law. After the Act has come into force, the limited estate has blossomed into an absolute estate. Therefore, the doctrine of proportionality of maintenance is not applicable and cannot be extended. (Para 18)