1999 Supreme(SC) 146

1999(1) Supreme 322
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
K. Venkataswami & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Smt. Naresh Kumari (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Sh. Shakshi Lal (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1798 of 1980
Decided on 5-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Bhaskar Gupta, Sr. Advocate, P.K. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A.K. Bakshi, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, and Chaman Lal Itorara, Advocates.

Important Point
A transferee who purchased widow’s limited estate prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act would not become the full owner of the property, especially where such sale was held to be void even before the Act came into force, and the property would revert back to the rever­sioners.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -Section 14(1) and (2)-Property of female Hindu-Scope of section-What is covered by sub-section (2) would not fall within sphere of sub-section (1)-All what has to be shown by a female Hindu is that she had a right in property in question and is possessed of that property-Possession need not necessarily physical-Sub-section (2) is in nature of exception or proviso to sub-section (1).

       Held : Section 14(1) enshrines long awaited, cherished and socially desirable protective right to a Hindu widow when her limited right in the estate of her husband, in lieu of her maintenance flowered into full right. She is conferred as full owner in such estate. The right to the maintenance of wife by a husband is recog­nised from the very inception, recognised even in the ancient vedic scriptures. This obligation was cast on the husband even where he had no property. However, when such benevolent principle was not followed, the law created an equitable charge on the estate of the husband, whether self acquired or a share in the ancestral property, for her limited right of maintenance. This charge was to place an obligation on the person inheriting such property of her husband to maintain the widow even where such property goes in their hands. Even before this 1956 Act, to secure justice to such widows, The Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 and The Hindu Married Women’s Act to Separate Maintenance and Residence Act, 1946 were made. Each of these Acts did not give any new right to the widows but gave recognition of their pre-existing rights. This made explicit for a widow to claim her maintenance out of the estate or share in a estate of her husband. (Para 5)

       It seems legitimately, wisdom of legislature thought that widows’ limited right to maintenance though being recognised right from very inception under the Hindu Law, followed by recognition through legis­lations, yet widows in receiving such limited right, faced difficul­ties in the hands of reversioners thus enacted the 1956 Act. Under it their limited right matured into full right. By sub-section (1) of Section 14, right in any property, possessed by a female Hindu, wheth­er such property was acquired before or after coming into force of the 1956 Act, is recognised to be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Thus, under it, the concept of limitation to the ownership right of a widow in such property dissolved. This was with an intention to eliminate the ordeal faced by widows for a long period of time. However, the periphery of such women’s absolute right under sub-section (1) is shrunk to a limited extent to what is con­tained under sub-section (2). So what is covered under sub-section (2) would not fall within the sphere of sub-section (1). Thus, it becomes necessary, while interpreting sub-sections (1) and (2) to keep in mind that this being a social and beneficial legislation for a female Hindu, its interpretation should not be such which curtails the benefit conferred under it. Thus, interpretation to sub-section (1) should not be restrictive but liberal in nature. On the other hand, sub-section (2) which curtails the sphere of sub-section (1) has to be given restrictive interpretation so as not to erode the sphere of widow’s right conferred under sub-section (1). The language in sub-section (1) makes it clear that all what has to be shown by a female Hindu is that she had a right in the property in question and she is possessed of that property. The possession may be physical, constructive or formal in a legal sense on the date of the coming into operation of the Act. But this is not the sine qua non for the acqui­sition to full ownership in the property. Under this sub-section when a female Hindu is put in possession of any property pursuant to her right to maintenance, her limited right or interest in the property thus far, by virtue of Section 14(1), blossoms into full ownership. On the other hand sub-section (2) of Section 14 is in the nature of exception or proviso to sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) makes a widow, who had a limited interest, to be a full owner regardless whether acquisition was prior to or after the coming into force of the 1956 Act. We find, on the other hand that sub-section (2) excludes a woman’s right from the field of sub-section (1), under this, where property is acquired by a female Hindu by way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument or under an order or decree of a civil court or under an award and where there is a term in such gift, will or instrument including the order or decree or an award prescribing a restricted enjoyment in such property, it will not mature any full right in such property. But where there is no such restriction in such property received by the transferee or beneficiary under such document or decree, it would not fall into the field of sub-section (2) but would fall under sub-section (1). (Para 6)

       The ingredients of this sub-section (2) are, (a) property must have been acquired by way of gift, will or an instrument, decree or order of a civil court or an award; (b) that such document, order or decree must prescribe a restrictive right in such property and (c) such instrument, document or order must confer a new right or interest in such Hindu female not by way of recognition of or by way of giving effect to any pre-existing right which she already possessed. (Para 7)

       (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14-Property of female Hindu-Widows right-Widow having life interest-Sale prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act-Sale assailed by reversioners-Sale held to be void-Pending appeal Hindu Succession Act came into force-Appeal dismissed-Widow died in 1957-Suit for possession by reversioners in 1959-Alianee’s plea that on coming into force of Act widow became full owner and aliance became absolute owner-Not tenable-Widow could not be said to be in possession of property when Act came into force sale being before Act came into force-Case did not fall u/s 14(1) as sale itself was invalid-Further there being no sale after even after Act came into force after decla­ration of original sale as void alianee could not claim benefit u/s 14(1).

       Held : It is not in dispute that in the first leg of litigation between the parties, when Smt. Kesri, widow of Radhaki­shan was alive and was a party, the respondents, reversioners of Radhakishan, succeeded in their suit by getting declaration of this disputed house, that the sale deed by Smt. Kesri to Smt. Naresh Kumari was without legal necessity hence void. The appeal filed by the appel­lants was dismissed which became final. The present issue has arisen when the respondents reversioners filed their second suit for posses­sion over the same property about which they got the decree as aforesaid. The question on these facts is, whether still appellants can claim to fall under sub-section (1) of Section 14? There could be no doubt before a benefit of sub-section (1) of Section 14, even by the widow (Smt. Kesri), could be conferred, she has to show that she is possessed of this property in dispute in lieu of her limited right of maintenance. The question is whether she was possessed of this property, to claim full right under sub-section (1) which she acquired before the 1956 Act came into force? The admitted fact is, she transferred all her right to the appellants through the said sale deed before the 1956 Act came into force. Thus, she could not be said to be possessed of this property. Thus, by her own conduct she herself relinquished all her right and even lost possession in it through the said transfer. Thus, she would not be said to be possessed of this property before coming into force the 1956 Act. Then how can she get benefit of sub-section (1) of Section 14? It may be examined from another angle. It is not in dispute that any female Hindu could only alienate her limited right in an estate prior to coming into force of the 1956 Act, which is in her possession, only for a legal necessity. If alienation is without any legal necessity or is contrary to law the alienee would only get a transitory limited right to enjoy the property, during the life time of the widow which is the only residu­ary right she possessed which could be deemed to have been transferred. Thus, after the widow’s death such property even from alienee would revert back to the reversioners of her husband. (Para 12)

       After having lost the battle in the first suit where it was held that Smt. Kesri sold the property to appellants without any legal necessi­ty. After transfer of the property through the sale, as aforesaid, she could not be said to have continued in possession of such property. The sale was prior to the coming into force of the 1956 Act. So, prior to coming into force of the 1956 Act, she could not be said to be pos­sessed of this property under sub-section (1) of Section 14. On the other hand, in the absence of any valid transfer by Smt. Kesari the reversioners would get the right in the said property after her death and alienee would have no right over it thereafter. Thus, the submis­sion on behalf of the appellants that as the sale deed dated 29th January, 1954 does not restrict the enjoyment of the estate, hence it would fall outside the purview of sub-section (2) and would fall under sub-section (1) of Section 14 is misconceived and cannot be accepted. Alienee could have matured her right in the property, if transfer by Smt. Kesri would have been after she had become full owner under Section 14(1), after coming into force of that Act. It is only in cases of valid transfers the question of examining whether such deed or document of transfer confers the transferee a restrictive right or not, arises. In this case, this does not arise, as transfer already held to be void in the earlier suit. (Para 13)

       A possible argument, though not argued, that in case the transfer was bad as void, the property would be deemed to have reverted back to Smt. Kesari and on coming into force of the 1956 Act she became full owner. Even if that be, alienee could only succeed if there be any transfer to her after this date. There is more in the present case, her claim is only through the sale deed executed when she had only limited right. On the contrary, we find that the order and decree in the first suit results into giving an alienee a restricted right. Thus, the said transfer would be circumscribed and restricted by the order passed in the first suit. Thus, even on this ground it could not be said that the alienee-appellants had unrestricted right. It is also not in dispute that the appellants received the property not in lieu of her any pre-existing right, but received right in the property for the first time through the sale deed. In view of this, the appellants’ case would fall under sub-section (2). Thus, the appellants’ right in the said property could not be upheld. (Para 14)