Back
2007 (I) OLR (SC) — 18
B. P. SINGH AND P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
Sadhu Singh... Appellant
Versus
Gurdwara Sahib Narike and others... Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1854 of 2003
Decided on 8th September, 2006.
The antecedents of the property, the possession of the property as on the date of the Act and the existence of a right in the female over it, however limited it may be, are the essential ingredients in determining whether Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act would come into play. What emerges according to us is that any acquisition of possession of property (not right) by a female Hindu after the coming into force of the Act, cannot normally attract Section 14(1) of the Act. It would depend on the nature of the right acquired by her. If she takes it as an heir under the Act, she takes it absolutely. If while getting possession of the property after the Act, under a devise, gift or other transaction, any restriction is placed on her right, the restriction will have play in view of Section 14(2) of the Act. (Para - 11)
2. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - Sec. 14(1) - Widow’s claim for absolute estate - Male Hindu dies after coming into force of the Act, leaving behind his widow as his sole heir - Even without calling in aid Sec. 14(1) of the Act, widow gets an absolute estate.
When a male Hindu dies possessed of property after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, his heirs as per the schedule, take it in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The heir or heirs take it absolutely. There is no question of any limited estate descending to the heir or heirs. Therefore, when a male Hindu dies after 17.6.1956 leaving his widow as his sole heir, she gets the property as class I heir and there is no limit to her estate or limitation on her title. In such circumstances, Section 14(1) of the Act would not apply on succession after the Act, or it has no scope for operation. Or, in other words, even without calling in aid Section 14(1) of the Act, she gets an absolute estate. (Para - 12)
3. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - Sec. 30 - Disposal of property - Will - Right of male Hindu to dispose of his property by a testament - It is not curtailed by Act - Succession under Act stands excluded and property passes to the testamentary heirs Will of a male Hindu providing only a life estate or limited estate for his widow could not be challenged being hit by the Act.
An owner of property has normally the right to deal with that property including the right to devise or bequeath the property. He could thus dispose it of by a testament. Section 30 of the Act, not only does not curtail or affect this right, it actually re-affirms that right. Thus, a Hindu male could testa¬mentarily dispose of his property. When he does that, a succes¬sion under the Act stands excluded and the property passes to the testatmentary heirs. Hence, when a male Hindu executes a Will bequeathing the properties, the legatees take it subject to the terms of the Will unless of course, any stipulation therein is found invalid. Therefore, there is nothing in the Act which affects the right of a male Hindu to dispose of his property by providing only a life estate or limited estate for his widow. The Act does not stand in the way of his separate properties being dealt with by him as he deems fit. His Will hence could not be challenged as being hit by the Act. (Para - 13)
4. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - Secs. 14(2), 14(1), 30 - Absolute estate of widow - Male Hindu disposed his separate property by will providing for limited estate to his wife or widow - Widow bound by the limitation on her right and she cannot claim any higher right by invoking Sec. 14(1) of the Act - Invo¬cation of Sec. 14(1) of the Act in the case of testamentary disposition taking effect after the Act, would make Secs. 30 and 14(2) redundant or otios.
When he thus validly disposes of his property by pro¬viding for a limited estate to his heir, the wife, the wife or widow has to take it as the estate falls. This restriction on her right so provided, is really respected by the Act.It pro¬vides in Section 14(2) of the Act, that in such a case, the widow is bound by the limitation on her right and she cannot claim any higher right by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. In other words, conferment of a limited estate which is otherwise valid in law is reinforced by this Act by the introduction of Section 14(2) of the Act and excluding the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, even if that provision is held to be attracted in the case of a succession under the Act. Invocation of Section 14(1) of the Act in the case of a testamentary disposition taking effect after the Act, would make Sections 30 and 14(2) redundant or otios. It will also make redundant, the expression ‘property possessed by a female Hindu’ occurring in Section 14(1) of the Act. An interpretation that leads to such a result cannot cer¬tainly be accepted. Surely, there is nothing in the Act compel¬ling such an interpretation. Sections 14 and 30 both have play. Section 14(1) applies in a case where the female had received the property prior to the Act being entitled to it as a matter of right, even if the right be to a limited estate under the Mitaks¬hara Law or the right to maintenance. (Para - 14)
5. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - Sec. 14(1)(2) - Will - Absolute estate of widow - Claim for - Gift - Will by male Hindu in favour of wife with stipulations that property must go to his nephews after death of wife - Wife cannot testamentarily dispose of the property in favour of any-one else - Wife during her life-time would not be entitled to mortgage or sell the properties - Held, apparent absolute estate in favour of widow cut down to a life estate - Widow not competent to gift away the properties - On cessation of life estate or widow, legatee under the will entitled to recover possession of the property.(Paras - 20 and 21)
JUDGMENT
P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. — One Ralla Singh held some prop¬erty. It was self-acquired. Isher Kaur was his wife. They had no children. On 7.10.1968, Ralla Singh executed a Will. Ralla Singh died on 19.3.1977. His widow Isher Kaur on 21.1.1980, purported to gift the property in favour of a Gurdwara. The appellant filed a suit challenging the deed of gift. He also prayed for recovery of possession after the death of Isher Kaur. The appellant claimed that under the Will of Ralla Singh, Isher Kaur took only a life estate and the properties were to vest in the appellant and his brother. On the terms of the Will under which she took the properties, Isher Kaur had no right to gift the property to the Gurdwara. She was bound by the terms of the bequest. Isher Kaur and the Gurdwara, contended that the property received by Isher Kaur on the death of her husband was as his heir and it was taken by her absolutely and she was competent to deal with the property. It was pleaded that in any event, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act entitled her to deal with the property as an absolute owner. The appellant countered that Isher Kaur having taken the property under the disposition of her husband, was bound by its terms and she had only a life estate and no com¬petence to donate the property. It was a case to which Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applied and the limitation on rights imposed by the Will was binding on Isher Kaur. Her estate could not get enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Act.
2. The trial Court held that the Will propounded by the appellant was not genuine. On that basis, it dismissed the suit holding that Isher Kaur had taken the property absolutely on the death of her husband as an heir and under the circumstances she was entitled to donate the property to the Gurdwara.The appellant filed an appeal. Pending the appeal, on 17.6.1996, Isher Kaur died. The lower appellate Court held that the Will propounded by the appellant was proved to be the last Will and testament of Ralla Singh. The appellant had proved its due and valid execu¬tion. The Will was thus upheld. The Court held that on the terms of the Will, Isher Kaur had only a life estate or limited inter¬est in the property and she had no right to transfer the property by way of gift. Since Isher Kaur had taken the property under the Will which placed a restriction on her right, Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession At applied. Consequently, the appellant as the legatee under the Will was entitled to recover possession of the property on the termination of the life estate of Isher Kaur. Thus the trial Court decree was reversed and the suit decreed. On behalf of the donee Gurdwara, a Second Appeal was filed in the High Court. The High Court, by what can even charitably only be called a thoroughly unsatisfactory judgment, reversed the deci¬sion of the lower appellate Court. It did not strain its thought process. Purporting to apply the ratio of the decision of this Court in V. Tulasamma Vs. V. Shesha Reddi [(1977) 3 SCR 261] and Raghubar Singh Vs. Gulab Singh [AIR 1998 SC 2401] that Court held that Section 14(1) of the Act applied to the case. It did not refer to the decisions relied on, on behalf of the appellant herein. Though it accepted the finding of the appellate Court on the genuineness and due execution of the Will by Ralla Singh, it did not specifically deal with the question whether Section 14(2) of the Act was attracted to the case. Thus, reversing the deci¬sion of the lower appellate Court, the High Court dismissed the suit. The appellant-plaintiff, is before us challenging the decision in Second Appeal.
3. The finding that Ralla Singh had executed a Will on 7.10.1968 rendered by the lower Appellate Court has not been upset by the Second Appellate Court. In fact, it has considered the Second Appeal on the basis that the Will has been executed and the property came to Isher Kaur on the basis of that Will. What it has presumably held is that
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
