1994 Supreme(Raj) 769
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
J.R.Chopra, P.K.Palli, JJ.
Balbir Kaur and another - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and others - Respondent
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898 of 1993.
Decided On : 16-05-1994
Property held by a Hindu female in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance becomes her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and she has the right to alienate the property after the Act came into force.
Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BY HINDU FEMALE - PROPERTY HELD IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - EFFECT OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14(1) TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE THE ACT - DISTINCTION FROM PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER A WILL.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between the sons of Dasonda Singh and his widow, Mst. Maha Kaur, over the inheritance of his property. The dispute was settled through a compromise agreement in 1940, under which Mst. Maha Kaur was given 30 bighas of land for her maintenance for life, with no right of alienation. Mst. Maha Kaur died in 1976, and before her death, she executed a registered Tamliknama in favor of her grandsons from her first husband. The sons of Dasonda Singh filed suits for possession of the land, while the grandsons filed a suit for permanent injunction. The courts below dismissed the suits filed by the sons of Dasonda Singh and decreed the suit filed by the grandsons.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property held by Mst. Maha Kaur in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance became her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and she had the right to alienate the property after the Act came into force. The court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Gumpha v. Jaibai, where the property was acquired by a Hindu female under a will, and Section 14 was interpreted in view of Section 30 of the Act, which deals with testamentary succession.
Issues: Whether the property held by a Hindu female in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance would become her absolute property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Vaddeoyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi and Santhanam Kachapalaya Gurukkal v. V. Subramanya Gurukkal, which held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, including acquisition in lieu of maintenance. The court also relied on the judgment in Gopal Singh v. Dile Ram, which held that a widow's limited estate becomes an absolute estate under Section 14 when the Act comes into operation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition filed by the sons of Dasonda Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. - The question arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the property held by a Hindu female in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance would become her absolute property under the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether she has a right to alienate that property after coming into force of the Act when she had become the absolute owner of the same.
2. One Dasonda Singh had three sons Bachan Singh, Shyam Singh and Bakshish Singh and on the death of his first wife he married to one Mst. Maha Kaur widow of Prem Singh. Mst. Maha Kaur had a son Sampuransingh from the loins of her earlier husband Prem Singh and respondents No. 4 and 5 Bikar Singh and Modan Singh, sons of Sampuran Singh and thus, grand-sons of Mst. Maha Kaur. On the death of Dasonda Singh somewhere in 1940, a dispute about the inheritance arose between the three sons of the on hand and Mst. Maha Kaur widow on the other hand. When an appeal was pending in this respect before the Revenue Officer, the parties settled the dispute through a compromise attested by the Revenue Officer on 16-12-1940, and Mst. Maha Kaur was given 30 bighas of land out of the estate left by her husband for the purposes of her maintenance for life with the rider that she would have no right of alienation and in the event of her death, the said land was reverted back to the three sons of Dasonda Singh. Mst. Maha Kaur is admitted to have died on 12-6-1976, and before her death she executed a registered Tamliknama on 31-7-1968, in favour of respondents Bikar Singh and Modan Singh her grand-sons from her first husband.
3. Two suits were filed on by the sons of Dasonda Singh for possession of the land in question in the hands of the above said respondents and one by the said respondents against the sons of Dasonda Singh for permanent injunction. Both the suits were consolidated and the suit filed by the above said respondents was decreed and the suit filed by the sons of Dasonda Singh was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 12-8-1981, and an appeal was filed by the heirs of Dasonda Singh i. e. Bachan Singh son of Dasonda Singh and Balbir Kaur, daughter of Bakshish Singh. The other heirs of Dasonda Singh were impleaded as proforma respondents. This appeal came to be decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide the judgment dated 12-9-1983, Annexure 2 and the same was dismissed. A second appeal was taken against these decisions to the Board of Revenue and that again was dismissed vide the judgment dated 20-10-1992, Annexure 3.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) JT SC 535, Smt. Gumpha v. Jaibai, for the proposition that the acquisition of property under a will by a Hindu Female creating life interest in her favour whether she becomes an absolute owner by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with explanation subsists. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that life estate of a widow under a will does not get enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
5. We have gone through this judgment very carefully. It may be stated that the question which was decided in this authority has been put in para 1 of the judgment and is reproduced hereunder:-
1. Does the life estate of a widow under a will executed in 1941, gets enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (in brief 'the Act') if the succession opened after death of the testator in 1958, is the question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)."
6. The present case is clearly distinguishable, since here the sons of Dasonda Singh entered into a compromise with Mst. Maha Kaur as early as on 16-12-1940, and 30 bighas of land was given to her in lieu of pre-exi
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
