The full ownership conferred upon a Hindu female under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is unaffected by any subsequent event and cannot be abrogated by referring to certain fictions under the Shastric Hindu Law.

JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, C.J.:---This petition has been referred to a larger Bench by a Division Bench by its order dated 16th September, 1980. The only question involved in the petition relates to the correct meaning and interpretation of the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Since the facts were undisputed and that was the only question involved, the petition itself has been referred to the Full Bench.

2. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are not in dispute. One Jagannath Gujar died in 1934 leaving behind his window Kesharbai. Kesharbai inherited three Gut numbers from her husband together admeasuring 26-H. and 39 Rs. The amended Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force on 2nd October, 1975 with retrospective effect from 26th September, 1970, which was the Appointed Day. Kesharbai filed her return within time. She stated that she had adopted a son Jitendra on 7th February, 1964. She also claimed that her adopted son was entitled to one half share in the property. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal accepted this contention of Kesharbai and stated that in view of the notional partition between Kesharbai and Jitendra, neither was a surplus holder. The case of Kesharbai was disposed of by the Tribunal.

3. In a suo motu enquiry under section 45(2) of the said Act, the Divisonal Commissioner issued notices to the parties and heard the parties. According to the Commissioner Kesharbai became full owner of the entire property left by her husband as a result of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act read with section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In that view Kesharbai alone would become the full owner and holder of 26-H. 39 Rs. left by her husband. Under the new Ceiling Act credit was given to the maximum holding of 21 H. 25 Rs. and the balance was declared surplus. Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner, Kesharbai has filed the present petition.

4. Pending the petition she died and two persons have been brought on record as her heirs and legal representatives, viz. the adopted son Jitendra in his capacity as an adopted son and one Alka Narayan Shah, the daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of Kesharbai. They reiterate the claim of Kesharbai that the decision of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal was correct and should be restored.

5. The only question that arises for our determination and which has been properly framed by the learned Advocate General is as follows :

"Whether by reason of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act which converts the limited estate into full ownership, in the case of the joint family property, does the adopted son take interest by birth i.e. civil birth, from the date of his adoption ?

The reference to a larger Bench became necessary though this point was apparently covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Yamunabai w/o Harihar Pandit v. Ram Maharaj Shreedhar Maharaj Pandit)1, reported in A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 463, though another Division Bench took a contrary view. The decision and ratio of this judgment was approved and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of (Punithavali Ammal v. Minor Ramalingam)2, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1730. Two judgments were delivered separately by learned Single Judges of this Court which followed the decision in Yamunabais case A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 463, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Apparently, therefore, the law was settled and the question raised had to be answered in the negative. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Hirabai w/o Harji Ingale v. Babu Manika Ingale)3, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 494: 1980 Bom.C.R. 451, came to the conclusion, after distinguishing the above judgments, that the character of the joint family property belonging to a coparcenary does not charge even though the only surviving person in the family is a widow who holds a limited estate and even though she was made full owner of the property by virtue of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document