Back
Bombay High Court
VAIDYA,NAIK
Limba - Appellant
Versus
Manikrao - Respondent
Decided On : 03/25/1977
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY BY FEMALE HINDU - INTERPRETATION - WIDOW IN JOINT FAMILY - RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - POSSESSION IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP UNDER SECTION 14.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Manikrao, filed a suit against defendant No. 1, Sitabai, and defendants Nos. 3 to 5, alleging that the suit property was part of the ancestral property of the family and that he was dispossessed of the land by Sitabai in May 1954. Sitabai resisted the suit, contending that the suit property was not part of the ancestral property and that she was in possession of the land since the death of her husband in 1950. The trial court held that the suit property was part of the ancestral property and that Sitabai was not entitled to remain in separate possession, but it also found that Sitabai was entitled to maintenance. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit property was part of the ancestral property and that Sitabai was not entitled to remain in separate possession. However, the court also held that Sitabai was in possession of the land within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that she had acquired ownership of the land under that section. The court found that Sitabai was in possession of the land as a widow of a joint family and that she had a right to be in possession in exercise of her possessory lien over the property as no provision had been made for her maintenance. The court also held that the plaintiff had not dispossessed Sitabai and that she had been in possession of the land since the death of her husband.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit property was part of the ancestral property of the family? 2. Whether Sitabai was entitled to remain in separate possession of the suit property? 3. Whether Sitabai was in possession of the land within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 4. Whether Sitabai had acquired ownership of the land under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit property was part of the ancestral property of the family based on the evidence presented, including Pahani Patraks and other entries relating to the land. 2. The court held that Sitabai was not entitled to remain in separate possession of the suit property because she was a widow of a joint family and had no right to exclusive possession. 3. The court held that Sitabai was in possession of the land within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, because she was in possession as a widow of a joint family and had a right to be in possession in exercise of her possessory lien over the property as no provision had been made for her maintenance. 4. The court held that Sitabai had acquired ownership of the land under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, because she was in possession of the land within the meaning of the section and had acquired a right to possess the land.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.
VAIDYA, J. :- The above First Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated Dec. 28, 1968, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1965, filed by respondent No. 1 Manikrao, on April 29, 1965.
2. The allegations made by the plaintiff, in the plaint, may be briefly summarised as under :
The plaintiff was related to defendant No. 1, Sitabai, as per the following pedigree :
3. The subject-matter of dispute was the land, survey No. 24, measuring 25 acres 27 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 19.72, situated at village Shivoor, in Taluka Latur. The said land was part of the plaintiffs ancestral property, enjoyed during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No. 1 Govindrao as joint family property.
4. The father of the plaintiff Bhujangrao died, on Feb. 20, 1950 As a result of his death, the surviving family consisted of the plaintiff and Govindrao, who also died as a member of the joint family on Dec. 4, 1950, without leaving any male issue and leaving only defendant No. 1 as his widow. The plaintiff thus claimed to be in enjoyment of the suit property since his minority till 1954 as the sole surviving coparcener till he was dispossessed of the land, with the help of some persons, by defendant No. 1 who, according to him, had no proprietary right and had only the right of maintenance therein.
5. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was dispossessed in the month of May 1954, since then defendant No. 1 continued to occupy the said land, till the filing of the suit. But in the meanwhile, defendant No. 1 entered into a contract for sale of the land for a consideration of Rs. 25,000 and received Rs. 11,000 by way of earnest money. The defendant No. 1 also executed an agreement of sale and a receipt of Rs. 11,000 on Sept. 15, 1963 at Latur. The plaintiff, therefore, called upon the defendants to restore possession of the land; but the defendant No. 1 was trying to transfer the land in favour of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit praying for possession after the defendants refused to deliver possession on April 24, 1965, with mesne profits and costs.
6. The defendant No. 1 by her written statement Ex. 39 resisted the suit contending that the suit property was not part and parcel of the ancestral property of the family of the plaintiff. She did not even admit that her husband died in union with the family or the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the family property till 1954. She denied the allegation that she had no right in the family property or that she had only a right of maintenance in the said property, or that she dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit property in May 1954 forcibly.
7. According to her, her deceased husband was the full owner in exclusive possession of the suit property and other properties, and they came in possession of the defendant No. 1, after the death of her husband; and since then, she was in possession and enjoyment thereof. She admitted that she agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant No. 2 but the agreement was revoked. She denied that the plaintiff had asked her to deliver possession and contended that the plaintiff' s suit for recovery of possession was liable to be dismissed, particularly when the plaintiff himself pleaded that Govindrao, the deceased husband of defendant No. 1 was holding the suit property exclusively along with the other separate lands before the tenancy authorities and gave evidence on oath to that effect.
8. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by their written statement, Ex. 75, reiterated the contentions made by defendant No. 1 and further stated that they entered into the agreement for purchasing the suit land from defendant No. 1; and in fact defendant No. 3 purchased 8 acres out of survey No. 25 for Rs. 6,000/-. The defendant No. 1 executed the registered sale deed in that behalf on May 24, 1966; and since then defendant No. 3 was in possession under the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
