Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Jagat Narayan,R.D.Gattani
LIKHMI CHAND - Appellant
Versus
SUKHDEVI - Respondent
Civil Regular First Appeal 83 Of 1962
Decided On : 05/08/1970
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY WIDOW IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - RESTRICTED ESTATE - NO FULL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY WIDOW - VOID - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - WIDOW ENTITLED TO POSSESSION DURING LIFETIME - PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO POSSESSION AFTER WIDOW'S DEATH - INJUNCTION GRANTED RESTRAINING WIDOW FROM SELLING, MORTGAGING OR TRANSFERRING PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Sukhdevi, a widow, was allotted a haveli and a nohra under an agreement with her father-in-law Askaran in lieu of maintenance and residence. The agreement restricted her right to sell, mortgage or transfer the properties. After Askaran's death, Smt. Sukhdevi sold the nohra to defendants 2 and 3 by registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs, Johrimal and his sons and grandsons, filed a suit for a declaration that the haveli and nohra belonged to them and that the sale deeds were void. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Smt. Sukhdevi had become the full owner of the properties on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was applicable to the present case and that Smt. Sukhdevi's right was a restricted right, the terms of which were contained in agreement Ex. 2. The court further held that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Sukhdevi in favor of defendants 2 and 3 were void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether Smt. Sukhdevi became the full owner of the haveli and nohra on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether the sale deeds executed by Smt. Sukhdevi in favor of defendants 2 and 3 were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Smt. Sukhdevi did not become the full owner of the haveli and nohra on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act because under the agreement Ex. 2 she had only a restricted life estate in the property. 2. The court held that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Sukhdevi in favor of defendants 2 and 3 were void because Smt. Sukhdevi was prohibited from selling, mortgaging or transferring the properties under the agreement Ex. 2.
Final Decision: The appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed in part. The court declared that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Sukhdevi in favor of defendants 2 and 3 were void and granted a permanent injunction restraining Smt. Sukhdevi from selling, mortgaging or transferring the haveli or the nohra in future. The court also held that Smt. Sukhdevi was entitled to possession of the nohra during her lifetime, but that the plaintiffs would be entitled to possession after her death.
JAGAT NARAYAN, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for grant of some reliefs in respect of a nohra and a haveli situated at Bidasar was dismissed by the Senior Civil judge, Churn.
( 2 ) THE findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court are not disputed before us. The only question for determination before us is a pure question of law. The facts necessary for the decision of the question are these: One Askaran had a son bhikamchand who died in his life-time leaving a widow Smt. Sukhdevi. Bhikamchand left a daughter Kan Kanwari who was not implead-ed as a party to this suit. Askaran was separate from his brother Dhanraj but Askaran and bhikamchand constituted a joint Hindu family. On the death of Bhikamchand his coparcenary interest in the joint family property went to Askaran by survivorship. Smt. Sukhdevi had only a right of residence and maintenance in the joint family properties.
( 3 ) ON 7-2-1928 Askaran executed a will in favour of his nephew Johrimal bequeathing all his properties on him. In view of this Smt. Sukhdevi asked for separate provision, to be made for her maintenance and residence. It may be stated here that Bhikamchand was living with Askaran in the family dwelling house at Bidasar with his wife. After his death Smt. Sukhdevi continued to live in the same family dwelling house in which her father-in-law was living.
( 4 ) SMT. Sukhdevi and Askaran appointed one Mool Chand Sethia as an arbitrator and he gave an award Ex. 2 on 9-7-1934. This award was accepted both bv askaran and Smt. Sukhdevi and so far as the present case is concerned it constitutes an agreement between them. Under this award two alternatives were given to Smt. Sukhdevi, She could either take a haveli and a nohra described in the award at Bidasar for her residence, or a haveli with bakhal at Ladnu. The haveli offered to her at Bidasar was different from the family dwelling house in which Askaran and Smt. Sukhdevi were residing at that time. The award went on to say that if she chose the house and nohra at Bidasar she would only get rupees 37,000/- for her maintenance. If on the other hand she chose the haveli and the bakhal at Ladnu she was to get Rupees 45,000/- for her maintenance. The sum ol Rs. 37,000/- or Rs. 45,000/- would become her absolute property but the immovable properties were given to her only for her life-time. Para 3 of the award runs as follows:--
"3. Out of the properties stated in para Nos. 1 and 2, whichever property smt, Sukhdevi wants to take, she will reside till her lifetime in them or in it and she can use it in any way she likes. On necessity she will get its repairs done with her own money. She will have no right to sell, mortgage or transfer in any other way. After her death the properties stated in para No. 1 or 2 (whichever she might take) will revert to askaran, his heirs and legal representatives. Her right will be only in her lifetime. She is authorised to undertake construction for necessity and convenience. She may increase or decrease apartments with her money. But she will not be authorised to destroy, deteriorate its usefulness and condition, etc. "
( 5 ) SMT. Sukhdevi chose the haveli and the nohra at Bidasar which were given to her and she went to reside in them,
( 6 ) ON 24-4-1945 Askaran died. On 11-4-1960 Smt. Sukhdevi sold the western half of the nohra to Mangatmal defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed Ex. 5 for rupees 10,000/- and the eastern half of it to Trilok-chand defendant No. 3 by means of a registered sale deed Ex. 6 for Rs. 10,000/ -. The purchasers were put into possession of the nohra as owners.
( 7 ) THE present suit was filed by Johrimal and his sons and grandsons for the following reliefs:--
" (a) That it be declared that the Haveli and Nohra described in the schedule annexed to this plaint belong to the plaintiffs and that the interest of the defendant No. 1 in these properties was created only to the extent of residence therein and use thereof
AI
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
