PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19561[Hereinafter the ‘Act’.], in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. (1977) 3 SCC 99”, Justice Bhagwati observed that this is a classic instance of a statutory provision which, by reason of its inapt draftsmanship, has created endless confusion for litigants and has proved to be a paradise for lawyers. Raising concern about the legislative indifference and interpretative difficulties presented by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14, leading to judicial divergence, which might as well be described as chaotic, robbing the law of that modicum of certainty which it must always possess, Justice Bhagwati observed;
V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. (1977) 3 SCC 99 [Para 1] – Relied.
Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors.
Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987) 3 SCC 674 [Para 9] – Relied.
Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma
Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 310 [Para 9] – Relied.
Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna
V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam
Gaddam Ramakrishnareddy and Ors. v. Gaddam Ramireddy and Anr.
Jagan Singh (Dead) through LRs. v. Dhanwanti and Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 628 [Para 9] – Relied.
Shivdev Kaur (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. RS Grewal
Ranvir Dewan v. Rashmi Khanna and Anr.
Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.
Mangal Singh and Ors. v. Rattno (Dead) by LRs. and Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1786 [Para 11
Seth Badri Prasad v. Smt. Kanso Devi
Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeravva (1959) Supp1 SCR 968 [Para 12] – Relied.
Mst Dan Kuer v. Mst Sarla Devi LR 73 IA 208 [Para 12] – Referred.
Seth Badri Parsad v. Smt. Kanso Devi (1969) 2 SCC 586 [Para 12] – Referred.
Nirmal Chand v. Vidya Wanti (1969) 3 SCC 628 [Para 12] – Referred.
Rani Bai v. Yadunandan Ram (1969) 1 SCC 604 [Para 12] – Referred.
Eramma v. Veerupana (1966) 2 SCR 626 [Para 12] – Referred.
Mangal Singh v. Rattno (1967) 2 SCR 454 [Para 12] – Referred.
Sukhram v. Gauri Shankar (1968) 1 SCR 476 [Para 12] – Referred.
Sumeshwar Misra v. Swami Nath Tiwari AIR 1970 Pat 348 [Para 12] – Referred.
Gadew Reddayya v. Varapula Venkataraju AIR 1965 AP 66 [Para 12] – Referred.
Smt Sharbati Devi v. Pt. Hiralal AIR 1964 P&H 114 [Para 12] – Referred.
Seshadhar Chandra Devi v. Tara Sundari Dasi AIR 1962 Cal 438 [Para 12] – Referred.
Saraswathi Ammal v. Anantha Shenoi AIR 1966 Ker 66 [Para 12] – Referred.
Kunji Thomman v. Meenakshi 1970 2 ILR(Ker) 45 [Para 12] – Referred.
Naraini Devi v. Ramo Devi (1976) 1 SCC 574 [Para 12] – Referred.
S Kachapalaya Gurakkal v. Subramania Gurukkal AIR 1972 Mad 219 [Para 12] – Referred.
Ram Jag Misir v. Director of Consolidation AIR 1975 All 151 [Para 12] – Referred.
Ajab Singh v. Ram Singh AIR 1959 J&K 92 [Para 12] – Referred.
Jaswant Kaur v. Major Harpal Singh, (1989) 3 SCC 572 [Para 13
C. Masilamani Mudaliar and Ors. v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil and Ors.
Gumpha v. Jaibai (1994) 2 SCC 511 [Para 16] – Relied.
Bhoomireddy Chenna Reddy v. Bhoospalli Pedda Verrappa
V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam, Nazar Singh v. Jagjit Kaur
Santosh & Ors. v. Smt Saraswathibai & Anr.
Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) v. Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D)
Raghubar Singh v. Gulab Singh (1998) 6 SCC 314 [Para 17] – Referred.
Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi (1995) 6 SCC 88 [Para 17] – Referred.
Bhura and Sharad Subramanyan Vs. Soumi Mazumdar & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 91 [Para 20] – Referred.
(1) Hindu female’s right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from sp....
Female Hindu inheritance – Objective of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of wife where such limited estate owes its origin t....
Hindu Women’s right to maintenance – Right of maintenance is sufficient for property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of HSA, 1956.
The court affirmed that a female's limited estate under a will evolves into an absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which cannot be restricted by subsequent bequests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to advance the objective of enlarging the limited interest possessed by Hindu ....
The right to maintenance under Hindu law can convert a limited interest in property into absolute ownership, overriding restrictions in the management deed.
The right to maintenance under Hindu law confers absolute ownership of property, overriding any restrictions in the management deed, as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Possession of property given to a Hindu female pursuant to or in recognition of a right to maintenance confers a right which gets enlarged to full ownership.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.