Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, grants absolute ownership rights to female Hindus over property acquired by them, including property acquired in lieu of maintenance, and nullifies any restrictions on their ownership rights.

Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - PROPERTY RIGHTS OF FEMALE HINDU - ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP - SALE OF PROPERTY BY LIMITED OWNER - VALIDITY - EFFECT OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.
Fact of the Case:

Yashodabai, the widow of Vasudeo Kulkarni, had a limited interest in the suit property as an owner for the purposes of her maintenance. After her death, her stepson Ramchandra sold the property to Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe by a sale deed that provided possession after Yashodabai's death. The heirs of Salunkhe sued the tenants for possession and mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sale transaction between Ramchandra and Salunkhe was of no consequence as Yashodabai became the absolute owner of the property during her lifetime under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which removed the traditional limitations on female ownership.
Issues: Whether the sale of the suit property by Ramchandra, a limited owner, to Salunkhe was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, grants absolute ownership rights to female Hindus over property acquired by them, including property acquired in lieu of maintenance. This provision nullifies any restrictions on the ownership rights of female Hindus and renders any disposition of property by a person other than the female Hindu owner无效.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the trial court and the lower appellate court were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs throughout.

JUDGMENT - N.K. PAREKH, J.:---Being aggrieved by an order and judgement dated the 29th September, 1978, passed by the Assistant Judge, Satara in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1974, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

2. The facts that lead to this appeal are that one Vasudeo Kulkarni had two wives, one being Gangubai and the other being Yashodabai. The said Gangubai had no issues. She adopted one Ramchandra as her son. Yashodabai, however, had one issue who was named Indubai. The said Vasudeo died in 1919. He also left behind him some property including the suit property. However, in view of some family disputes that arose, the said Yashodabai was constrained to file a suit being Civil Suit No. 265 of 1926. In the said suit, a decree came to be passed, inter alia allotting the suit property to the said Yashodabai, and granting her a limited interest therein as an owner, but only for the purposes of her maintenance. After the passing of the said decree, the said Yashodabai inducted tenants in the said suit land, being one Namdeo Bhau Sonawale and Ramchandra Dasharath Mahar. However, the said Ramchandra V. Kulkarni i.e. the stepson of the said Yashodabai) by a deed of sale dated 4th January, 1933 sold the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2000/- in favour of one Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe. The said deed, inter alia provided that the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe would get possession of the suit property after the death of Yashodabai. The said Yashodabai died on or about the 19th of December, 1968. Thereupon, said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe filed a suit against the tenants and/or the occupants of the suit property, i.e., against Namdeo Bhau Sonawale and Ramchandra Dasharath Mahar, being Regular Civil Suit No. 74 of 1969 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Koregaon. In the said suit, the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe claimed possession of the suit property on the strength of the sale deed passed in his favour by the said Ramchandra V. Kulkarni. He also claimed mesne profits. The suit was registered by the said Namdeo Bhau Sonawale and Ramchandra Dasharath Mahar. By an order and judgement dated the 27th of March, 1974, the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Koregaon, granted "symbolic possession" of the suit property to the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe, but passed no orders in respect of mesne profits. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred, and proceeded with by the heirs of the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe. This appeal came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1974. This appeal was resisted by the heirs of Namdeo Bhau Sonawale and the said Ramchandra Desharath Mahar, i.e., the tenants and/or the occupants of the suit property. By an order and judgement dated 29th September, 1978, the learned Judge granted the heirs of the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe i.e., the respondents herein (who were the appellants in the said appeal) relief by making an order for mesne profits. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appellants 1 to 9, being the heirs of the said Namdeo Bhau Sonawale and appellant No. 10, who is the original defendant No. 2 have filed the present appeal. The heirs of the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe have of course resisted this appeal.

3. At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Apte the learned Counsel for the respondents argued that in so far as Yashodabai was concerned, she was granted a right of maintenance cut of the suit property or otherwise was granted the suit property in lieu of her maintenance. That in either event, her rights in the property were of a limited nature. That as a matter of fact, the decree itself provided that Yashodabai could not alienate the suit property during her life time. That in the circumstances, Ramchandra (i.e. Yashodabai's step son) was entitled to sell the suit property which he had in fact done in favour of the said Dnyanu Bayaji Salunkhe by a sale deed dated 4th January, 1933. That the said deed executed in favour of the said Salunkhe provided th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document