Daughters' rights to residence in ancestral property are absolute under the Hindu Succession Act, reaffirming the father's moral obligation to maintain them, effective even if he died before the Act was enacted.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing them to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent- plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on 14^th June 1993 on the following substantial questions of law:

i. If Rama died prior to 1956 as is the admission of plaintiff in cross, whether defendants right of residence is protected under provision of section 23 of HINDU SUCCESSION ACT .

ii. If he died after 1956 whether defendants can claim share in Ramas interest.

iii. Effect of Section 14 of HINDU SUCCESSION ACT .

iv. Other incidental question.

2. The suit property is ancestral. The original holder was Natha, who died leaving behind two sons, Rama and Chandar. The parties claim rights in respect of the suit property through Rama. In the partition between Rama and his brother, Chandar, the suit property was allotted to Rama. Rama had three daughters and three sons. Plaintiff is the widow of one of the sons, Laxman. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the daughters of Rama, and defendant no.4 is the son of defendant no.3. The suit property is part of the property that was allotted to the share of Rama.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession from the appellants. The plaintiff contended that after the demise of Rama in the year 1950, the property, including the suit properties, was jointly owned by the sons of Rama. The plaintiff further contended that there was a partition amongst the sons of Rama, namely Laxman, Dnyanoba and Tukaram, and the suit property came to the share of the plaintiff’s husband, Laxman. She further contended that out of sympathy, Laxman had permitted the appellants to reside in the suit property. She contended that after the death of Laxman, she permitted them to reside in the suit property. The plaintiff vide notice dated 1^st August 1986 called upon the appellants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the appellants refused to hand over possession, she filed the suit seeking possession.

4. The defendants, i.e. the appellants, filed a common written statement and denied the suit claim. They contended that the suit property was originally an open land that was given by their father Rama towards their maintenance. They contended that the defendants constructed the structure on the open land out of their own income. They denied that there was any partition amongst the brothers. They further contended that even if there was a partition, the same would not be binding upon the defendants. According to the defendants, the defendant no.1 came to reside in the suit property after their father’s demise, post 1956. Defendant no.2 came to reside in the suit property in the year 1949, and defendant no.3 came to reside in the suit premises after their father’s demise prior to 1950, along with her son-defendant no.4. The defendants contended that defendant nos. 2 and 3 were widows and therefore came to reside along with their father. Defendant no.1 was abandoned by her husband when she came to reside along with her father, and later on, even her husband expired. Hence, it is contended by the defendants that the land was given by their father towards their maintenance and out of their own income, they constructed the structure on the land allotted by their father. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek exclusive rights over the suit property and dispossess them.

5. The trial court held that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff a