Back
1995 Supreme(Ori) 111
High Court Of Orissa
PRADIPTA RAY
BRAJABANDHU MISRA - Appellant
Versus
LUHURANI MISRA - Respondent
Second Appeal 311 Of 1984
Decided On : 05/15/1995
R.C.RATH, Y.MOHANTY
A widow's limited interest in her husband's separate property under the customary Hindu law governing Mitakshara succession matures into an absolute right under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnote:
HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - WIDOW'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY - HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 - APPLICABILITY TO PRINCELY STATES - WIDOW'S LIMITED INTEREST IN HUSBAND'S SEPARATE PROPERTY - MATURING INTO ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed title to the suit land as the self-acquired property of her deceased husband, Dhaneswar. She argued that upon his death in the 1940s, she acquired a limited interest in the land under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, which later matured into an absolute right under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant, Dhaneswar's brother, contested her claim, asserting that the suit land was his self-acquired property or, alternatively, that it was joint family property in which the plaintiff had no interest.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court concurrently found that the suit land was Dhaneswar's self-acquired property and that the plaintiff had acquired a limited interest in it upon his death under the customary Hindu law governing Mitakshara succession. They also held that her limited interest matured into an absolute right with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, was applicable to the area in question, which was within a Princely State and outside British India prior to 1950. 2. Whether the plaintiff acquired any interest in the suit land upon the death of her husband under the customary Hindu law governing Mitakshara succession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, was not applicable to the area in question prior to 1950, as it was outside British India. 2. Under the customary Hindu law governing Mitakshara succession, a widow inherited a limited interest called widow's estate in the separate property of her husband in the absence of a son, grandson, or great-grandson. 3. The plaintiff acquired a limited widow's estate in the suit land upon the death of her husband, as he did not have any son, grandson, or great-grandson. 4. The plaintiff's limited interest matured into an absolute right under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as she was in possession of the suit land at the time the Act came into force.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired a limited interest in the suit land upon the death of her husband under the customary Hindu law governing Mitakshara succession, and that her limited interest matured into an absolute right under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
PRADIPTA RAY, J.
( 1 ) THE present second appeal involves a dispute over the question of title and possession in A. C. 0. 33 decimals of land of plot No. 150 within Holding No. 15 of village Kunjam in Pallahara Sub-division, Dhenkanal which was within an erstwhile Princely State.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff has claimed her title in the suit land on the basis that the suit property was the self-acquired property of her husband Dhaneswar. Her case is that on the death of Dhaneswar in the forties, she got a limited interest in the suit land and after enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her limited interest became absolute in accordance with Section 14 thereof. It appears that the plaintiff's name has also been duly recorded in the current record of rights. The plaintiff has stated that taking advantage of her helplessness the defendants, a brother of her husband, was trying to disturb her possession in the suit land and she had to start a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. In the said proceeding the suit lands have been kept under attachment by the Magistrate. In the said circumstances, she has filed the present suit for declaration of her title, confirmation of possession, injunction and other ancillary reliefs.
( 3 ) THE defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff. The defence case is that the suit land is the self-acquired property of the defendant. He has also pleaded an alternative case that the suit lands were joint family property and the plaintiff did not get any interest in the property on the death of Dhaneswar in the forties.
( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below have concurrently found that the suit land was the selfacquired property of the husband of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff acquired limited right on the death of her husband under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and got possession of the same; that the said limited right matured into an absolute right with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, and that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands when those were attached by the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the defendant-appellant it has been urged that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act was inapplicable to the area which was within a Princely State and outside the British India. It has been stated that the said Act of 1937 became applicable to the area only after the enactment of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950, and therefore, on the death of her husband the plaintiff did not get any right or interest in the property.
( 6 ) THE contention that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 was inapplicable to the concerned area before 1950 appears to be correct. The Courts below have failed to take notice of the same and erred in proceeding upon the view that the plaintiff got a limited interest in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1937.
( 7 ) BUT non-applicability of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 to the area did not alter the position of the plaintiff at the time of her husband's death. Admittedly her husband died without leaving any son, grandson or great-grandson. Under the customary Hindu Law governing Mitakshara, succession a widow, in absence of a son, grandson or great-grandson, used to inherit a limited interest called widow's estate in the separate property of the husband. Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 entitled a widow to get a limited interest in equal share along with the son. Before enactment of the said Act of 1937 a widow did not get any interest in the property if the husband left any son, grandson or great-grandson.
( 8 ) ARTICLES 35 and 43 in Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law make the position clear. In Article 35 at page 107 in the 15th Edition of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla the position of law prior to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act has been stated: -"under the law prior to the Act, the widow of a person governed by the Mitakshara had only a right of maintenance in respect of a coparcenary
