1. Suit for possession of ancestral property by widow against sisters-in-law claiming right of residence as daughters. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5969
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gauri Godse, J
ANUSAYA BABURAO KALE AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
BABAI LAXMAN CHORGE – Respondent
SA 296 / 1993
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditi S. Naikware, Pradeep Thorat, Rushikesh S. Kekane
For the Respondents: Sharad Bhosale, Dilip Bodake
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditi S. Naikware, Pradeep Thorat, Rushikesh S. Kekane
For the Respondents: Sharad Bhosale, Dilip Bodake
A Hindu female's limited interest in property, acquired through a father's moral obligation to maintain destitute daughters or under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, converts into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the said Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 14 and 23 - Right of residence and ownership of Hindu female heirs - Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, including property acquired in lieu of maintenance, shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner under Section 14(1) (Paras 13, 17(c) and 17(d)) - Section 23 provided that a female heir, specifically a daughter who is unmarried, widowed, or deserted, is entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling-house of a Hindu intestate (Paras 11 and 17(f)).
(B) Maintenance of daughters under uncodified Hindu law - A father is under a moral obligation to maintain his unmarried daughters and destitute married daughters; if such moral obligation is acknowledged by the father through the transfer of property or provision of residence, it elevates to a legal obligation binding upon the heirs who inherit the estate (Paras 14, 15 and 17(a)).
Facts of the case:
Defendants, the daughters of a deceased father, were in possession of an ancestral dwelling house. The plaintiff, the widow of the father's son, sought possession of the property, alleging that the defendants were residing there as gratuitous licensees and that the property had been allotted to her husband in a partition between the brothers. The defendants contended that they had been residing in the property since their father's lifetime as it was provided to them for their maintenance. The lower courts had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants' possession was not based on a gratuitous license. It was established that at least one daughter had occupied the premises during the father's lifetime. The court held that the right of residence acquired through the father's obligation to maintain his destitute daughters constitutes a limited interest that blossomed into absolute ownership upon the commencement of the 1956 Act.
Issues: Whether the daughters' right of residence in the ancestral dwelling house is protected under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regardless of the date of the father's death, and whether such an interest converts into absolute ownership under Section 14 of the said Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that under uncodified Hindu law, the moral obligation to maintain destitute daughters, once acknowledged by the father, becomes a legal obligation. This right to maintenance and residence creates a limited interest in the property. By virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any such limited interest possessed by a Hindu female converts into absolute ownership. Additionally, Section 23 protected the right of residence for widowed or deserted daughters. Therefore, the defendants could not be treated as gratuitous licensees whose license could be terminated.
Result: Second appeal allowed; impugned judgments and decrees quashed and set aside; suit dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
- hindu succession
- hindu law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claimed defendants were gratuitous licensees whose licence was terminated. Defendants claimed right of residence as destitute daughters. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court found defendants were in possession before partition. Father had moral obligation to maintain destitute daughters which crystallised into legal right. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Under Section 14 read with Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter's pre-existing right of residence blossoms into absolute ownership. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Second appeal allowed. Concurrent decrees for possession quashed. Suit for possession dismissed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Does a daughter have a right of residence in her father's dwelling house under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Yes. A female heir who is unmarried, deserted, separated from husband, or a widow has a right of residence in the dwelling house of the intestate. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 )
7. Does a father have a legal obligation to maintain his destitute married daughter?
A father has a moral obligation to maintain a destitute married daughter. Acknowledgement of this moral obligation brings it to the level of a legal obligation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
8. Does Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 convert a daughter's limited right of residence into absolute ownership?
Yes. Any property possessed by a female Hindu, including a right acquired in lieu of maintenance before the Act, is held by her as full owner, not as a limited owner. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 )
9. Is the date of the father's death relevant for determining a daughter's right of residence under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
No. Whether the father died before or after 1956, a destitute daughter's right of residence is protected under the Act and Section 14 improves any pre-existing right. (Para 18 , 19 )
10. Can a brother who inherits property under a partition claim possession against his destitute sisters who were allowed to reside by their father?
No. The moral obligation of the father to maintain destitute daughters devolves upon the heirs inheriting his property, and the sisters' right of residence is protected. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :-
1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing them to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on 14th June 1993 on the following substantial questions of law:
i. If Rama died prior to 1956 as is the admission of plaintiff in cross, whether defendants right of residence is protected under provision of section 23 of Hindu Succession Act.
ii. If he died after 1956 whether defendants can claim share in Ramas interest.
iii. Effect of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act.
iv. Other incidental question.
2. The suit property is ancestral. The original holder was Natha, who died leaving behind two sons, Rama and Chandar. The parties claim rights in respect of the suit property through Rama. In the partition between Rama and his brother, Chandar, the suit property was allotted to Rama. Rama had three daughters and three sons. Plaintiff is the widow of one of the sons, Laxman. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the daughters of Rama, and defendant no.4 is the son of defendant no.3. The suit property is part of the property that was allotted to the share of Rama.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession from the appellants. The plaintiff contended that after the demise of Rama in the year 1950, the property, including the suit properties, was jointly owned by the sons of Rama. The plaintiff further contended that there was a partition amongst the sons of Rama, namely Laxman, Dnyanoba and Tukaram, and the suit property came to the share of the plaintiff's husband, Laxman. She further contended that out of sympathy, Laxman had permitted the appellants to reside in the suit property. She contended that after the death of Laxman, she permitted them to reside in the suit property. The plaintiff vide notice dated 1st August 1986 called upon the appellants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the appellants refused to hand over possession, she filed the suit seeking possession.
4. The defendants, i.e. the appellants, filed a common written statement and denied the suit claim. They contended that the suit property was originally an open land that was given by their father Rama towards their maintenance. They contended that the defendants constructed the structure on the open land out of their own income. They denied that there was any partition amongst the brothers. They further contended that even if there was a partition, the same would not be binding upon the defendants. According to the defendants, the defendant no.1 came to reside in the suit property after their father's demise, post 1956. Defendant no.2 came to reside in the suit property in the year 1949, and defendant no.3 came to reside in the suit premises after their father's demise prior to 1950, along with her son-defendant no.4. The defendants contended that defendant nos. 2 and 3 were widows and therefore came to reside along with their father. Defendant no.1 was abandoned by her husband when she came to reside along with her father, and later on, even her husband expired. Hence, it is contended by the defendants that the land was given by their father towards their maintenance and out of their own income, they constructed the structure on the land allotted by their father. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek exclusive rights over the suit property and dispossess them.
5. The trial court held that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and the defendants were residing in the suit premises as gratuitous licensees. The trial court held that the plaintiff terminated the licence and thus was entitled to seek possession of the suit property. The appeal preferred by defendants was dismissed and the trial court decree was confirmed. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are summarised as under:
