Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Pritpal Singh, J.
Padma Vati Ahuja
Versus
Dasaundhi Ram
Second Appeal No. 1897 of 1976,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1985
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - INTERPRETATION - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HINDU FEMALE IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - WHETHER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) APPLIES - PRE-EXISTING RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE - ENLARGEMENT OF LIMITED ESTATE TO FULL OWNERSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a house gifted by a husband to his wife in lieu of maintenance. The wife, Parmeshwari Devi, died childless, leaving a will bequeathing the house to Dasaundhi Ram. The plaintiff, Padmavati Ahuja, the daughter of the husband from another wife, claimed ownership of the house based on a gift deed executed by her father in her favor and a will executed by Parmeshwari Devi in her favor. The main issue was whether the limited ownership of Parmeshwari Devi in the house, as per the gift deed, was enlarged to full ownership upon the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied to the case, and Parmeshwari Devi became the full owner of the house upon the enforcement of the Act. The court reasoned that Parmeshwari Devi had a pre-existing right of maintenance, which was recognized and confirmed by the gift deed, and therefore, the gift did not confer any new title on her. Consequently, the defeasance clause in the gift deed, which would have given ownership to the plaintiff upon Parmeshwari Devi's death, became redundant.
Issues: 1. Whether sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied to the property acquired by Parmeshwari Devi in lieu of maintenance. 2. Whether Parmeshwari Devi had a pre-existing right of maintenance. 3. Whether the limited ownership of Parmeshwari Devi was enlarged to full ownership upon the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to any property possessed by a female Hindu, including property acquired in lieu of maintenance, and such property becomes the absolute property of the female Hindu. 2. A Hindu woman's right to maintenance is a pre-existing right that flows from the social and temporal relationship between the husband and wife. 3. Where a Hindu female acquires property in lieu of maintenance, such acquisition is not a new title but a confirmation of the pre-existing right of maintenance, and therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 14 does not apply.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that Parmeshwari Devi became the full owner of the house upon the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and she had the right to bequeath the property to Dasaundhi Ram.
1. The house in dispute belonged to the deceased Shri Bhagat Ram Advocate of Ludhiana who died on Sept.27, 1958. He had two wives. The plaintiff-appellant Smt. Padmavati Ahuja is his daughter from one of the wives. The name of the other wife was Parmeshwari Devi who died childless on Oct. 24, 1963. Shri Bhagat Ram made a gift of the house in dispute in favour of Parmeshwari Devi vide gift deed dt. July 23, 1930 (Exhibit D2). This gift was in lieu of maintenance and it was mentioned in the gift deed that Parmeshwari Devi will be entitled to alienate the same for necessity, but if she does not alienate the house then on her death the house will revert to the donor and in case the donor dies before the donee, then the plaintiff-appellant will become the owner of the house. Subsequently on Sept.23, 1942 Shri Bhagat Ram executed a Will (Exhibit P.1) by which he bequeathed his remaining property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In the Will it was mentioned that he had already gifted the house in dispute in lieu of maintenance in favour of his wife Parmeshwari Devi and it was again clarified that after the death of Parmeshwari Devi, Shri Bhagat Ram and on his death the plaintiff-appellant will become owner of the house. Parmeshwari Devi executed a Will dt. April 11, 1963 (Exhibit D.1) bequeathing the house in dispute to Dasaundhi Ram, respondent 1. On her death in October 1963, Dasaundhi Ram took possession of this house in pursuance of the Will and then sold it away to Smt. Sawarna Rani, respondent. 2.
2. Claiming that she had become owner of the house on the death of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, the appellant-Smt. Padmavati Ahuja filed a suit for possession of the house against the respondents Dasaundhi Ram and Smt. Sawarna Rani. It was pleaded that in terms of the gift deed (Exhibit D.2) Smt. Parmeshwari Devi had only life estate in the house and on her death the appellant had become owner thereof since her father had already died. The appellant also claimed mesne profits from the respondents.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents mainly on the plea that Parmeshwari Devi had become full owner of the house in dispute under S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and she was fully competent to bequeath the house to Dassaundhi Ram respondent.
4. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court accepted the contention of the respondents and held that the limited ownership of Parmeshwari Devi in the house in dispute, by virtue,of the gift deed (Exhibit D.2), had been enlarged to full ownership on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act on June 19, 1956 in view of its S.14(1). It was further held trfat since the house had been gifted for life by Shri Bhagat Ram to Smt. Parmeshwari Devi in lieu of maintenance the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act ) were not applicable. The appellant s suit was, therefore, dismissed.
5. The short question that arises for determination in the second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, is whether it is sub-sec.(1)or sub-sec.(2) of S.14 of the Act which is applicable to the rights of Parmeshwari Devi in the house in dispute. If sub-sec.(1) applies then the limitations on the nature of her interest are wiped out and she became full owner of the property. On the contrary, if sub-sec.(2) applies then her limited interest in the property is not enlarged and she continued to have the restricted estate prescribed by the gift deed (Exhibit D.2). In order to determine this question it is necessary to notice the provisions of S.14 of the Act which are reproduced below :-
"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 of 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 movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or dev
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
