Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. Katju, J.
SHAKUNTALA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
BENI MADHAV - Respondents
Civil Revn. 10 Of 1959
Decided On : 09/05/1962
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND - RESTRICTED ESTATE - WIDOW'S INTEREST - FULL OWNERSHIP - COMPENSATION BONDS - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, was the widow of Pundri Kaksh, who died in 1947. Pundri Kaksh was possessed of Zamindari properties along with his brother Beni Madhav. The applicant was given compensation bonds of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- only in respect of the share of her husband in the aforesaid property but the balance of the compensation amount was withheld on the ground that she had a limited interest in the property. Subsequently, she made an application to the Compensation Officer claiming the balance of the amount of compensation on the ground that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) she had become full owner of the property left by her deceased husband and she was entitled to the balance of the compensation amount that had been withheld.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied to the property in dispute, which was compensation bonds in lieu of zamindari property acquired under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The court also held that the applicant possessed the property in dispute within the meaning of Section 14(1) and that her interest in the property was not restricted by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the court held that the applicant was a full owner of the properties left by her deceased husband and she was entitled to receive the compensation bonds which had been withheld from her.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act apply to agricultural land. 2. Whether the applicant possessed the property in dispute within the meaning of Section 14(1). 3. Whether the applicant's interest in the property was restricted by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act apply to agricultural land because they fall within the ambit of Entry No. 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to matters concerning wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of the constitution subject to their personal law. 2. The applicant possessed the property in dispute within the meaning of Section 14(1) because the compensation bonds were deemed to be in her possession, even though they were in deposit with the Imperial Bank of India. 3. The applicant's interest in the property was not restricted by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act because what she got under the will was the interest of a "Hindu widow", which was defined by law and which could be enlarged or restricted by law. It was the interest of a Hindu widow which was enlarged directly into full ownership by the provisions of Sub-section (1).
Final Decision: The court allowed the application in revision and directed that the application made by the applicant under Section 85 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act should be allowed. The order of the Court below was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against an order of the Additional District Judge of Meerut dismissing the Applicants application under Section 85 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
( 2 ) THE applicant Smt. Shakuntala Devi ia the widow of one Pundri Kaksh who died in 1947. Pundri Kaksh was possessed of Zamindari properties along with his brother Beni Madhav. The applicant was given compensation bonds of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- only in respect of the share of her husband in the aforesaid property but the balance of the compensation amount was withheld on the ground that she had a limited interest in the property. Subsequently she made an application to the Compensation Officer on 30-7-1956 claiming the balance of the amount of compensation on the ground that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956} she had become full owner of the property left by her deceased husband and she was entitled to the balance of the compensation amount that had been withheld and had been deposited in the imperial Bank of India in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 69 and Rule 85 framed under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
( 3 ) BENI Madhav opposite party who was the real brother of the deceased Pundri Kaksh and was a co-sharer in the villages in question along with his deceased brother filed an objection contending that according to the terms of the will executed by late Pundri Kaksh the applicant had only the interest of a Hindu widow in the said properties and as such she was not entitled to get the remaining bonds and had not become the full owners thereof.
( 4 ) THE Compensation Officer by his order dated 1-11-1957 held that the applicant had not become a full owner of the said property in view o f the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Hindu succession Act and thus she was not entitled to receive the remaining bonds. The applicant appealed against the aforesaid order of the Compensation Officer and the Additional District judge held that the will executed by the late Pundri Kaksh was not void as contended by the applicant. It had been urged by the applicant that since Pundri Kaksh was a co-parcener or a member of the joint Hindu family he was not competent under the Hindu Law to dispose of his property by a will. This contention was repelled by the Court below on the ground that it was not proved that the interest bequeathed by Pundri Kaksh was his joint interest and that no evidence had been produced to show that the property in respect oi which Pundri Kaksh had made a will was co-parcenery property. It was further observed by the Court below that the will had been presented for registration by the applicant herself and under the circumstances it could not be said that it was void. The Court below further held that the will of Pundri Kaksh dated 19-9-1947 had prescribed a restricted estate in the property which he had bequeathed in favour of the applicant and she could not be deemed to have become the full owner thereof under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
( 5 ) AGREEING with the view of the Compensation Officer the Court below held that the applicant was not entitled to the compensation bonds that had been withheld from her. Aggrieved from the said order of the Court below the applicant has come in revision before me.
( 6 ) THE points raised before me are firstly, that the applicants interest had ripened into full ownership and therefore she was entitled to receive the remaining compensation bonds that had not been given, to her. It was contended that assuming that the will had been properly executed by Pundri Kaksh whatever interest had come to the applicant under the aforesaid will had been converted into full ownership by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act. The counsel for the opposite party contended that the interest of the applicant was confined to a life estate and she was not entitled to receive all the compensation bonds and second
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
