SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Raj) 152

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.M.Lodha
MOOL KANWAR - Appellant
Versus
JEEWALAL - Respondent
Civil Second Appeal 168 Of 1970
Decided On : 11/13/1981

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN BHANDARIA, P.N.AGRAWAL

A Hindu widow in possession of property given to her for residence and maintenance is entitled to alienate the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - MAINTENANCE - RIGHT OF WIDOW TO ALIENATE PROPERTY - WIDOW IN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY GIVEN FOR RESIDENCE - PRESUMPTION OF ACQUISITION IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - VALIDITY OF ALIENATION.

Fact of the Case:

Narangi, the widow of Gujarmal, sold a property to Mool Kanwar. Jiwalal and Inderchand, the son and grandson of Gujarmal, challenged the sale on the ground that Narangi had no right of ownership in the property and could not have sold it to Mool Kanwar. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it, holding that Narangi had not proved that she got the property in maintenance.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Narangi was entitled to alienate the property to Mool Kanwar and the alienation was valid. The court found that Narangi was in possession of the property, which was given to her for residence, and was also holding it for maintenance. Therefore, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied in her case.

Issues: Whether Narangi had the right to alienate the property to Mool Kanwar.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a Hindu female has a right of maintenance from her husband and this right was in existence under the basic tenets and Shastric Hindu Law. The court also held that the property in dispute was given to Narangi for residence and she was also holding it for maintenance. Therefore, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied in her case and she was entitled to alienate the property to Mool Kanwar.

Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the judgment of the first appellate court was reversed and that of the trial court was restored, but with the modification that the possession of the property in dispute would be handed over back to the appellant-defendant Mool Kanwar only after the executing Court has determined the amount to be paid of the improvement in the form of constructions etc. made by the plaintiff-respondenls Jiwalal and Inderchand, and after that determination that amount is paid to them.

Judgment


G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal in a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the first appellate Court.

( 2 ) SUALAL died in 1962 leaving behind two sons Gujarmal and Jiwanlal. Gujarmal died in Samvat-Year 1974 leaving behind widow Mst. Narangi.

( 3 ) MST. Narangi has sold this property to Mool Kanwar for a consideration of Rs. 600/ -.

( 4 ) THIS sale was challenged by Jiwalal and his son Inderchand on the ground that Narangi had no right of ownership in the property and she could not have sold the property to Mool Kanwar. So far as other pleas are concerned regarding the plaintiffs having a will from deceased Gujarmal and challenge to consideration or allegation that the sale deed was executed when Narangi was paralytic and was not having proper senses, both the Courts have given concurrent finding against the plaintiffs, and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with those points as none of them has been challenged before this Court.

( 5 ) THE sole point on which the plaintiffs suit has been decreed is that Narangi widow of Gujarmal could not take advantage of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, because it has not been proved that she got this property in maintenance. It was held that Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act was not in force in Jaipur State. The first appellate Court was of the view that it has not been alleged or proved that Narangi was holding the property in lieu of maintenance, and, therefore, she had any right to alienate the property.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I am of the opinion that this finding of the lower Court cannot be sustained. It has been held in Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi AIR 1977 SC 1944, that a Hindu female has got a right of maintenance from her husband and this right was in existence under the basic tenets and Shastric Hindu Law.

( 7 ) HINDU concept of marriage is not contractual, but it is treated as a sacrament, a religious ceremony which results in a sacred and a holy union of man and woman by virtue of which the wife is completely transplanted in the household of her husband and takes a new birth as a partner of her husband becoming a part and parcel of the body of the husband. A well known Hindi Maxim "ardhangni Nar Ki Nari Hai" is based on the concept that the wife shares not only life and love with the husband, but sorrows and troubles and tribulations and becomes an integral part of her husbands life and activities.

( 8 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 14 have referred to Digest of Hindu Law (Vol. II) by Colebrooke, where on page 158 the wife is described as half of the body of the husband.

( 9 ) IN paras 14, 15, 16 and 17, the Honble Supreme Court has discussed the Hindu Text of Mahabharat and intentions of Manu. Para 16 reads as under:-

"colebrooke in his digest of Hindu Law, Vol. II, quotes the Mahabharat at p. 121 thus: Where females are honoured, there the deities are pleased; but where they are unhonoured, there all religious acts become fruitless. This clearly illustrates the high position which is bestowed on Hindu women by the Shastric Law. Again Colebrooke in his book Vol. II at p. 123, while describing the circumstances under which the maintenance is to be given to the wife, quotes Manu thus. Should a man have business abroad, let him assure a fit maintenance to his wife, and then reside for a time in a foreign country; since a wife, even though virtuous, may be tempted to act amiss, if she be distressed by want of subsistence. While her husband, having setteled her maintenance, resides abroad, let her continue firm in religious austerities; but if he leaves no support, let her subsist by spinning and other blameless arts. This extract clearly shows that there is a legal obligation on the part of the hub-band to make arrangements for his wifes due maintenance even if he goes abroad for business purposes, Colebrooke again quotes Yajnyawalk









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top