Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Barman And G. K. Misra, JJ.
RAGHUNATH SAHU - Appellant
Versus
BHIMSEN NAIK - Respondent
Second Appeal 80 Of 1963
Decided On : JULY 24, 1964
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FEMALE HINDU - INTERPRETATION - COMPROMISE DECREE IN PARTITION SUIT - WHETHER ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - FULL OWNERSHIP OR RESTRICTED ESTATE.
Fact of the Case:
In a partition suit, a compromise decree allotted 4.10 acres of land to the widow, defendant No. 2, out of which she was given absolute right in respect of 1.10 acres (Ka schedule) and life interest in respect of the remaining 3 acres (Kha and Ga schedule). The widow sold the Ka schedule land to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, the widow's grandson, filed a suit for a declaration that the sale was not binding on him beyond the lifetime of the widow and for a permanent injunction restraining her from further transferring the suit lands.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the widow had only a life interest in the Kha and Ga schedule lands under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: Whether the widow acquired absolute title to the Kha and Ga schedule lands under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act or only a restricted estate under Section 14(2).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act grants full ownership to a female Hindu in respect of any property possessed by her, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. 2. Section 14(2) provides that nothing in Section 14(1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift, will, or other instrument, or under a decree or order of a Civil Court or an award, where the terms of the gift, will, or other instrument or the decree, order, or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 3. The compromise decree in the partition suit did not confer a new title on the widow but merely recognized her pre-existing title to the property. 4. The widow did not acquire any new property by partition; she was given exclusive right in the properties allotted to her in lieu of her undivided share in the joint estate. 5. The compromise decree in the partition suit cannot be said to be a decree within the meaning of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Final Decision: The widow acquired absolute title to the Kha and Ga schedule lands under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The sale of the Ka schedule land to defendant No. 1 was valid. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
BARMAN, J.
( 1 ) THE point involved in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 14 of The Hindu succession Act, 1956 for determination of a female Hindu Widow's right under a compromise decree in a certain partition suit in respect of property allotted to her to be held by her in severally in lieu of her undivided share in the joint estate in the manner provided in the decree.
( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the sale effected by his widowed paternal grand-mother defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding on the plaintiff beyond the life time of defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa and for issue of permanent injunction against defendant No. 2 restraining her from further transferring the suit, land's in future as prayed for in the plaint.
( 3 ) THE facts so far as material for the present purpose are shortly these: defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa is a widow of one Satura Naik deceased. Plaintiff's father Arakhit (deceased) was the only son of defendant No. 2 dulei Bewa. Defendant No. 3 Bisika Bewa is the widow of Arakhit. In a previous partition suit T. S. No. no of 1953 filed by defendant No. 2 dulei Bewa for partition against defendant No. 3 Bisika Bewa and plaintiff Bhimsen Naik there was a compromise decree dated August 18, 1954 Ext. 1 by which defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa was allotted 4. 10 acres out of which she was given absolute right in respect of 1. 10 acres (Ka schedule) and life interest in respect of the remaining 3 acres and she gave up her interest in respect of the remaining 6. 59 acres to which she was legally entitled. Under the terms of the said compromise defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa could not transfer her interest in the 3 acres of land in respect of which she was allowed life interest. On May 23, 1959 defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa sold 1. 77 acres (out of the said 3 acres) being Kha schedule to defendant No. 1 under a sale deed. The plaintiff's case is that the said sale was in violation of the terms of the compromise. On October 27, 1955, the plaintiff filed this present suit for reliefs as aforesaid. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. The defence is that defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa had acquired absolute right in the suit property by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act.
( 4 ) THE trial Court found that defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa was allowed life interest in respect of the property in dispute; so it comes under Section 14 (2) of the Hindu succession Act: and accordingly defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa cannot be held to be full owner. In appeal the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the said decision. Accordingly both the Courts decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal by defdts. 1 and 2.
( 5 ) THE only point argued herein is: Did defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa become full owner of the property in dispute by virtue of Hindu Succession Act ? sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act read thus:
14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation: In this sub-section, "property" includes both moveable and immoveable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance, or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will, or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a Civil Court or under an award where the terms
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
