Important Point
A Hindu widow has a pre-existing right of maintenance under Shastric Hindu Law and it is covered by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Law-Hindu widow-Right to maintenance - Whether traceable only to Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 or does it flow from Shastric Hindu Law on account of incidence of marriage itself-(the later).
       Held : The right to maintenance of the Hindu widow, as a pre-existing right, was thus recognised by the two statutes referred to above but it was not created for the first time by any of those statutes. Her right to maintenance existed under the Shastric Hindu Law long before statutory enactments came into force. (Para 16)
       Thus, we find that there is enough authority for the proposition that the right to maintenance of a Hindu female is a pre-existing right, which existed in the Hindu Law long before the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946 came into force and is not a creation of those statutes, which only recognised that position. (Para 21)
       Further held : Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband, she has a right to be maintained out of it and she is entitled to retain the possession of that property is lieu of her right to maintenance. (Para 22)
       Held consequently : The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court suffers from a misconception about the nature of the “pre-existing right” of a Hindu widow. The opinion of the learned single Judge that there could be no “pre-existing right” vesting in Smt. Janak Dulari because of the non-applicability of the 1937 Act in Rewa State is clearly erroneous. Her right to maintenance existed under the Shastric Hindu Law and was not created by the 1937 or 1946 Acts. Those Acts merely gave statutory backing to her existing rights. (Para 29)
       (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -Sections 14(1) and 14(2)-Hindu widow - “Pre-existing right” to maintenance-Whether covered by Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Act? (the former)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : The High Court also fell in error in holding that the case of Smt. Janak Dulari was covered by Section 14(2) of the Act and not by Section 14(1) of the Act. The ‘Will’ as already noticed declared and the Compromise Decree recognised the right of Smt. Janak Dulari as an “owner in possession” of the suit property with all the “rights and control” over it. The compromise decree did not create any independent or new title in her favour for the first time. Sub-section (2) of Section 14, thus has no application to her case. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 14, the limited interest (even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Smt. Janak Dulari had only a limited interest in the property of which she was in possession as an owner) automatically got enlarged into an absolute one, her case was clearly covered by Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 30)
       Held finally : The impugned judgment of the High Court thus cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court is set-aside and that of the trial Court restored. The parties are however directed to bear their own costs. (Para 31)

Judgment

Dr. A.S. Anand, J.-An answer to the question whether Smt. Janak Dulari wife of Manraj Singh had any pre-existing right in the suit land and whether after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) she became the full or absolute owner of that land, would determine the fate of this appeal by special leave.

2. The following table shows the relationship between the parties :-

Subran Singh

Hakim Singh Dashrath Singh Hukum Singh

Dhurandhur Singh

Manraj Singh Khedu Singh Dilraj Singh Rabiraj Singh Pancham Singh

= Janak Dulari = Kalawati

Narbadia

Osersingh Samsher Singh Manpher

Raghubir Singh & Ors.

(Defendant No. 1) = Appellants

Gulabsingh Jokhai Singh Sheojorsingh

(Pltff.1) (Pltff. 2) (Pltff. 3)

(Respondents)

Manraj Singh son of Dhurandhar Singh and grandson of Hakimsingh son of the common ancestor of the parties Subransingh, executed a will (Ex. D-5) on 23.7.1946. He died on 27.8.1946. Manpher Singh son of Dashrath Singh son of the common ancestor Subransingh filed a suit for cancellation of the will in which Smt. Janak Dulari widow of Manraj Singh and her grandson Raghuvir Singh (son of Narbadia) were both made parties. That suit ended in a compromise and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise deed (Ex. P-3) on 2.8.47. Clause Nos. 1 and 2 of the compromise decree read as follows :-

“1. That as till her life time as Hindu widow per terms of Will dated 23.7.1946 executed by Manraj in favour of Raghubar Singh Mst. Janak Dulari will remain in ownership and possession.

2. That after the death of defendant Janak Dulari Pawai (Jagirdar) Britt, Pawai, 55/45, except land which was received in partition by the father of Manraj Singh, Dhurandher Singh all property moveable and immovable whole house will go to the heirs of Maniraj Singh, Defendant Raghubar Singh as owner and to his heirs and legal representatives.”

3. Smt. Janak Dulari continued to remain in possession of the suit property after the death of her husband Manraj Singh on 27.8.1946. She died on 3.11.1969. The respondents (sons of Samsher Singh son of Dashrath Singh) herein, after the death of Smt. Janak Dulari, filed a suit for possession of the suit land and mesne profits inter alia alleging that the land in suit was ancestral Pawai land of Manraj Singh and on the death of Manraj Singh, Smt. Janak Dulari as his widow came into possession of the entire land. That Manraj Singh had no son and as his only issue, a daughter by name Narbadia, according to the law then in force in Rewa State (where the suit lands are situated) could not inherit from her father, he (Manraj Singh) executed a will on 23.6.46 gifting the entire property, movable and immovable, to Raghubir Singh protecting the right of his wife Smt. Janak Dulari to enjoy the usufruct from the land during her life time. It was also alleged that Janak Dulari had no pre-existing right in the suit land and that the compromise decree (Ex. P-3) had created only life interest in her and, therefore, despite Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Janak Dulari

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 649

Important PointA Hindu widow has a pre-existing right of maintenance under Shastric Hindu Law and it is covered by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
A Hindu widow has a pre-existing right of maintenance under Shastric Hindu Law and it is covered by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.