S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not intended to benefit alienees of a Hindu female limited owner.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The significant question of law before this Full Bench on a reference has been succinctly formulated in the following terms:-

"Whether a female who is possessed of land under a gift made by a limited owner prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act becomes full owner after the enforcement of the Act?"

The salient facts from which the issue arises are hardly in dispute. The original male owner of the suit land was one Matu. On his death his wife Smt. Sunder succeeded to his estate as a limited owner. However, she absolutely gifted one-half share in Khewat No. 58 in favour of her husband s brother s daughter Smt. Parmeshwari defendant and the mutation in respect thereof was sanctioned on the 28th of August, 1953. The donee was apparently put in possession of the said property. The Hindu Succession Act came into force on the 17th of June, 1956 and about 5 years thereafter Smt. Sunder, the donor, died some time in 1961. A suit was then brought on the 2nd of March, 1963, by Smt. Santokhi, the real sister of Smt. Permeshwari donee, for a declaration that the gift in the latter s favour was invalid on the primary ground that Smt. Sunder, the original donor, held only a life estate in the land in dispute and was, therefore, not entitled to make an absolute gift thereof. The suit was contested by Smt. Parmeshwari defendant but was decreed by the trial Court.

2. On appeal, the judgment and decree above-mentioned was affirmed by the first appellate Court. The second appeal came up before my learned brother Jain, J., who referred the question to a larger Bench in view of the conflict of authority on the point. The Division Bench before which the matter was placed, directed that the issue was of such significance that it should be finally settled by a Full Bench.

3. It is evident from the two referring orders that there is a significant conflict of authority on the point. However, before inevitably adverting to the intricacies of precedent it would be refreshing to examine the matter in the light of the provisions of the statute itself.

4. S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, around which necessarily the controversy revolves, is in the following terms:-

"14 (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 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-s. (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 of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property."

5. Inevitably a provision of this nature has to be construed against the background of the pre-existing law and in the light of the matrix of facts which necessitated its enactment. Even generally, no enactment is to be construed in a vacuum and this is particularly so in the case of S. 14 aforesaid which was primarily intended to remedy the intricacies of the then existing Hindu Law on the point and to radically reform the same. It is neither possible nor perhaps desirable to launch on a detailed dissertation of the nature and extent of the right to property of the Hindu females prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Nevertheless, it appears to me that without a brief passing reference to the pre-existing law thereto, the matter cannot b