Judgement

THAKKAR, J. :- Under the same law*1 in an identical fact-situation, a Hindu widow who has inherited property in Orissa or Andhra Pradesh would be a limited owner and would not become an absolute owner thereof whereas if she has inherited property in Madras, Punjab, Bombay or Gujarat she would become an absolute owner. That is to say, in a situation where a Hindu widow regains possession of a property (in which she had a limited ownership) subsequent to the commencement of the Act*2 upon the retransfer of the very same property to her by the transferee in whose favour she had transferred it prior to the commencement of the Act. This incongruous situation has arisen because of an interpretation and application of Section 14(1)*3 of the Hindu Succession Act CS(Act) in the context of the aforesaid fact- situation the High Courts of Orissa*1 and Andhra Pradesh*2 have proclaimed that she would be only a limited owner of such property on such retransfer whereas the High Courts of Madras*3, Punjab*4, Bombay*5 and Gujarat*6 have taken a contrary view and have pronounced that she would become an absolute owner of such a property in the aforesaid situation. We have therefore to undertake this exercise to remove the unaesthetic wrinkles from the face of law to ensure that a Hindu widow has the same rights under the same law regardless of the fact as to whether her property is situated within the jurisdiction of one High Court or the other.

* 1. Section 14(l) of Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

* 2.The Act came into force on June 17, 1956.

* 3. "Section 14(l) : Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before

2. The appellant who unsuccessfully canvassed before the High Court of Madras that the view propounded by the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts deserved to be preferred to the view taken by the other four High Courts, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal by a Certificate granted under Article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution of India that the matter involves a substantial question of law.

3. The typical facts in the backdrop of which the problem has to be viewed are :-

1) A Hindu female acquired a property, say by reason of the death of her husband, before the commencement of the Act (i.e. before June 17, 1956).

2) What she acquired was a widows estate as understood in shastric or traditional Hindu Law.

3) She lost the possession of the property on account of a transaction whereby she transferred the property in favour of an alienee by a registered document of sale or gift.

4) The property in question was retransferred to her by the said alienee after the enforcement of the Act by a registered document thus restoring to the widow the interest (such as it was which she had parted with earlier by reversing the original transaction.

or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

Explanation - In this sub-section, includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu 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, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act."

* 1. Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukria Bewa, AIR 1963 Orissa 167.

* 2. Venkatarathanam v. Palamma, (1970) 2 Andh WR 264.

* 3. Chinnakolandai Goundan v. Thanji Gounder, ILR (1966) 1 Mad 326: (AIR 1965 Mad 497).

* 4. Teja Singh v. Jagat Singh, AIR 1964 Punjab 403.

* 5. Ramgowda Aunagowda v. Bhausaheb. ILR 52 Bom 1 : (AIR 1927 PC 227).

* 6. Bai Champa v. Chandrakant, AIR 1973 Guj 227.

It is in this factual background that the question will have to be examined as to whether upon the reconveyance of the very property which she had alienated after enforcement of the Act, she would become a full owner in