A woman's life estate under a Gift Deed can become an absolute interest if it was established to fulfill a pre-existing duty of maintenance, reflecting both classical Hindu law and statutory interpretations under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

^^j{ksr dU;ka fir foéka ifr% iq=kk'k~ p ok/kZdsA

vHkkos Kkr;l~ rs"kka u LokrU++«;a Odfpr~ fLrz;k%AA^^

The aforequoted dictum from Yājñavalkya Smṛti (Verse 1.85) encapsulates an elementary principle of classical Hindu law viz. the duty to protect and maintain a woman. It sets out a clear order of responsibility as it ordains the duty of protection of woman upon the father during minority, upon the husband after marriage and in later years, upon the sons. Although, at first blush, it may appear to state merely that a woman should not be left independent or without dependence, its contextual import is different. What lends this principle added force is the express recognition that, in the absence of those placed in the first order of responsibility, the obligation does not lapse but devolves upon the jñātis, i.e., the nearest kinsmen of the family.

2. This continuity of familial obligation, deeply embedded in classical Hindu law, later found statutory expression in the post-Independence codification of Hindu personal law, including provisions dealing with maintenance and the property rights of women. It is in this doctrinal continuum that the present case falls to be examined. In particular, the instant proceedings require this Court to traverse the inter-play between classical Hindu law principles and their modern statutory codification, particularly the scheme of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter“the HSA ”).

3. The instant application has been filed by defendant no. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “the CPC”), seeking rejection of the plaint broadly on two grounds i.e., firstly, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and secondly, the suit is barred by law.

4. The facts of the case exhibit that the captioned suit has been filed seeking partition of property bearing no. 6, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, ad-measuring, 0.773 acres/3741 sq. yds./ 3128.20 sq. m. (hereinafter “the suit property”). The suit property was originally owned by one late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh and the parties to the present lis are his descendants. Late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh had three sons, namely Mr. S. Gurbax Singh, Mr. S. Gurbachan Singh, and Mr. S. Gurcharan Singh. Mr. S. Gurbachan Singh pre-deceased his father, leaving behind his wife and Ms. Ajit Inder Singh, the plaintiff herein. The defendants are the descendants of Mr. S. Gurbax Singh and Mr. S. Gurcharan Singh.

5. During his lifetime, Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh executed Gift Deed dated 01.02.1956 (hereinafter “the Gift Deed”), vide which, he gifted the suit property to his surviving sons, Mr. S. Gurbax Singh, Mr. S. Gurcharan Singh, as well as to the plaintiff, being the daughter of his predeceased son. While the gifts in favour of the sons were unqualified, the plaintiff’s interest was limited to a life estate i.e., she was entitled to enjoy her share during her lifetime, and upon her demise, the same was to devolve upon her children, if any. In the event the plaintiff left no children, her share was to revert to the other co-sharers. The plaintiff has now sought partition of the suit property.

Submissions

6. Mr. Samrat Nigam, learned senior counsel for defendant no. 2, submitted that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. He took the Court through the G