Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Raj Kishore Prasad and U.N.Sinha JJ.
Ram Gulam Singh
Versus
Palakdhari Singh
Appeal from Original Decree No. 353 of 1955 ;
Decided On : MAY 12, 1960
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - APPLICABILITY - ALIENATIONS BY HINDU WIDOW - VOID OR VOIDABLE - POSSESSION OF ALIENEE - CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF WIDOW - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION 14.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, as nearest reversioners of deceased Rajendra Singh, brought the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on 19-11-1951, for a mere declaration that the just mentioned alienations, (Exts. A and A/1), amongst other alienations, by defendant 13, were fraudulent, collusive, nominal, without consideration, without legal necessity and not genuine, and, therefore, they were not binding on them.
Finding of the Court:
The court below, however, did not record any finding, one way or the other, on the question of possession, as to whether there was a transfer of possession from the vendor to the vendees, as alleged by them, obviously because the plaintiffs suit was for a mere declaration, as they could not ask for possession during the life time of the widow, defendant 13, the alienor, who was still alive.
Issues: Whether the suit by the plaintiffs-respondents, in view of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No. XXX of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "possessed" occurring in Sec.14(1) of the Act, is used in a broad sense, and, in the context, it means the state of owning or having in ones hand or power. The opening words "Any property possessed by a female Hindu", therefore, obviously mean that to come within the purview of the section the property must foe in possession of the female concerned at the date of the commencement of the Act. 2. The legal position of an alienee of Hindu widows property has been clearly laid down by B.K. Mukherjee, J. in Kalishankar Das V/s. Dhirendra Nath, AIR 1954 SC 505 at pages 509-510, in these words: "The interest of a Hindu widow in the properties inherited by her bears no analogy or resemblance to what may be described as an equitable estate in English law and which cannot be followed in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. From very early times the Hindu widows estate has been described as qualified proprietorship with powers of alienation only when there is justifying necessity, and the restrictions on the powers of alienation are inseparable from her estate : vide Collector of Masullipatam V/s. Cavaly Vencatanarainapah, 8 Moo Ind App 529 (PC). For legal necessity she can convey to another an absolute title to the property vested in her. If there is no legal necessity, the transferee gets only the widows estate which is not even an indefeasible life estate for it can come to an end not merely on her death but on the happening of other contingencies like re-marriage, adoption, etc. If an alienee from a Hindu widow succeeds in establishing that there was legal necessity for transfer, he is completely protected and it is immaterial that the necessity was brought about by the mismanagement of the limited owner herself. Even if there is no necessity in fact, but it the alienee could prove that lie made bona fide enquiries and was satisfied about the existence of the necessity the transfer is undoubtedly nut void, but the transferee would get only the widows estate in the property which does not affect in any way the interest of the reversioner". 3. Where, therefore, before the Act came into force, the female owner had sold away the property in which she had only a limited interest and put the vendee in possession, she should in no sense be regarded as possessed of the property when the Act came into force. The object of the Act was to confer a benefit on Hindu females by enlarging their limited interest in property inherited or held by them into an absolute estate, with retrospective effect, if they were in possession of the property when the Act came into force and were therefore in a position to take advantage of its beneficent provisions. 4. The Act was not intended to benefit alienees, or to give them a windfall, or, to unduly enrich them at the expense of the reversioners, when the alienees, with eyes open, purchased property from female limited owners without any justifying necessity before the Act came into force and at a time when the female vendors had only the limited interest of a Hindu woman. 5. The nature of the interest acquired by an alienee from a female Hindu gets fixed on the date of the alienation. In a case where the alienation is not binding on the reversioners to the estate of the last male holder, the interest which the alienee gets is the right not to have the alienation impeached by the woman and to hold the property at the pleasure of the reversioners on the termination of the womans estate. That interest of the alienee is not affected either to his advantage or to his prejudice by Sec.14(1): Marudakkal V/s. Arumugha Goundar, AIR 1958 Mad 253: ILR 1958 Mad 354.
Final Decision: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This appeal, by defendants 2, 3, 4 and 14, is from the judgment of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga who has decreed the plaintiffs suit, declaring that the sale deed dated 16-1-1951 (Ext. A) executed by Musstt. Arti Kuer, defendant 13, mother of Alkhi Kuer, defendant 14, in favour of defendants 2 and 3, and, another sale deed executed on the same day (Ext. A/1) by defendant 13 in favour of defendant 4, were both without consideration and legal necessity, and not genuine, and, not binding on the plaintiffs, who were the nearest reversioners to the estate of the deceased Rajendra Singh alias Gena Singh, grandson of defendant 13.
2. The appeal on behalf of defendant 14 was not pressed, and, therefore, we are concerned now only with the appeal of defendants 2, 3 and 4, the alienees from defendant 13, under Exhibits A and A/1.
3. The sole question, for determination in the appeal, is, whether the suit by the plaintiffs-respondents, in view of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No. XXX of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, is maintainable?
4. The material facts, which are necessary to be stated for deciding the above question, are these:
5. The last male holder of the lands in suit was one Rajendra Singh alias Gena Singh. Rajendra Singh died in 1931 without any issue leaving behind properties including the lands in suit. After his death, his grand mother Mst. Arti Kuer, defendant 13, inherited all the properties of her deceased grandson including the lands in suit and came in possession of the same. She on 16-1-1951 executed the above mentioned impugned sale deeds, Exts. A and Al.
The plaintiffs, as nearest reversioners of deceased Rajendra Singh, brought the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on 19-11-1951, for a mere declaration that the just mentioned alienations, (Exts. A and A/1), amongst other alienations, by defendant 13, were fraudulent, collusive, nominal, without consideration, without legal necessity and not genuine, and, therefore, they were not binding on them. The aforesaid allegations of the plaintiffs are to be found in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the plaint
6. The suit was contested by the several transferees, including the appellants, by Separate written statements. The main defence of the appellants, with whom alone we are concerned in the appeal, is to be found in paragraph 11 of their written statements. Defendants 2 and 3 filed one written statement, and, defendant No. 4 filed another written statement. The allegations of the plaintiffs in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint were controverted by the defendants in paragraph 11 of their respective written statements, in which they denied the plaintiffs allegations and asserted that the alienations in their favour were for adequate consideration, and, they were given effect to, and that they, as transferees, entered into and were in possession and occupation of their respective vended lands.
7. The learned Judge of the court below accepted the plaintiffs case and held, inter alia, that the two impugned transfers, (Exts. A and A1), in favour of defendants 2, 3, and 4, the appellants, were neither genuine nor were they acted upon nor were they executed for legal necessity nor were they for consideration, and, therefore, they were not binding on the plaintiffs.
8. The court below, however, did not record any finding, one way or the other, on the question of possession, as to whether there was a transfer of possession from the vendor to the vendees, as alleged by them, obviously because the plaintiffs suit was for a mere declaration, as they could not ask for possession during the life time of the widow, defendant 13, the alienor, who was still alive.
9. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force on 17-6-1956. Relying on Sec.14 of the Act, it was strenuously urged by Mr. Satyanand Kumar, appearing for the appellants, that on the plaintiffs own a
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
