Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 262
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha and Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha JJ.
Dukhit Thakur
Versus
Most.Godami Kuer
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 332 of 1974 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 23, 1979
The provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possessed by her at the date of commencement of this Act, she would become the full owner of the property.
Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FEMALE HINDU - FULL OWNERSHIP - RESTRICTED ESTATE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants-first party had only a right of maintenance in the subject matter of the suit and they had no right to alienate any part of the same. The suit was contested by two sets of defendants. The trial court found that Ext. 4 was not a genuine and valid document and as such defendants-first party had perfect title over the disputed land and were entitled to alienate them. The lower appellate court found that Ext. 4 was a genuine document and not forged one. Relying, however, on the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court regarding the defendants-first party having absolute title to the disputed properties including the right to alienate them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possessed by her at the date of commencement of this Act, she would become the full owner of the property. The court further held that the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are more in the nature of a proviso or exception to Sub-Section (1) and being in the nature of an exception to a provision which is calculated to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of woman in Hindu society, it must be construed strictly so as to impinge as little as possible on the broad sweep of the ameliorative provision contained in Sub-Section (1).
Issues: Whether the provisions of Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable to the instant case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable to the instant case as the widows got the property in question by virtue of a partition and not by way of gift, will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal and held that the defendants-first party had absolute title to the disputed properties including the right to alienate them.
CHOUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, J.
1. This matter has been referred to Division Bench by order No. 15 dated 13-12-1976 without specifying the point for decision by the Division Bench.
2. This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgement and decree confirming the decision of the trial court by the lower appellate court. namely, the second Additional District Judge Champaran in a suit in which the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the defendants-first party had only a right of maintenance in the subject-matter of the suit and they had no right to alienate any part of the same, the further and consequent relief sought for by the plaintiff being that the two sale-deeds executed by defendants-first party with respect to the lands described in Schedule 4 to the plaint in favour of defendants-second party were illegal and not binding on him.
3. In view of the limited contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the relevant facts may be stated thus :-
One Lachhuman Thakur had three sons - Jiwan Thakur, Jangi Thakur and Achutanand Thakur. Defendant No. 3 Janardan Thakur is the son of Jiwan Thakur. Defendant No. 1 Godami Kuer is one of the four wives of Achuta Nand Thakur. One Rajendra Thakur is the son of Achayuta Nand Thakur by his third wife and Radhika Devi, Defendant No. 2, is the widow of Rajendra Thakur. While there was no issue to Achayuta Nand Thakur from his second wife, From his first wife he had two sons and one daughter. The sons were Dwarika Thakur, husband of Lakhpati, and Dukhit Thakur the plaintiff of the suit. The daughter was named Lalita Devi.
4 The case of the plaintiff was that after the death of Achayuta Nand Thakur some time in the year 1943, his son Rajendra Thakur, having pre-deceased him, a dispute cropped up among the widows of Achayuta Nand Thakur which culminated in a panchayati. The panches allotted certain properties to the widows by way of their maintenance during their lifetime, the widows being given a restricted right therein namely that they were not entitled to transfer any of those properties Ext. 4, as stated in the plaint, was said to be a memorandum of the decision of the panches.
5. The suit was contested by two sets of defendants. Defendants-first party described Ext. 4 as a forged and fabricated document and they disputed their thumb impressions thereon. Defendants-second party, the purchasers from defendants-first party, supported the case of the latter in their written statement. Among other findings, with which we are not very much concerned in this second appeal. the trial court found that Ext. 4 was not a genuine and valid document and as such defendants-first party had perfect title over the disputed land and were entitled to alienate them. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
6. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The lower appellate court found that Ext. 4 was a genuine document and not forged one. Relying, however, on the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court regarding the defendants-first party having absolute title to the disputed properties including the right to alienate them. The result was that the appeal was dismissed. This is how the plaintiff has come up in second appeal before this court.
7. The sole contention of Sri Sankat Haran Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, before this court, was that the proper provisions applicable to the instant case were those laid down in Sub-Section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act and the lower appellate court committed an error of law by dismissing the plaintiffs suit relying on Sub-Section (1) of Sec.14 of the Act.
8. None appeared on behalf of the defendants to contest this appeal. After going through Ext. 4, looking to the provisions of Sec.14 and hearing the counsel for the appellant, I must say at once that there is no substan
