1. Execution of decree for property recovery — Claim of full ownership by female Hindu under Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Dispute over retrospective application of Section 8. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Eramma, Appellate
Versus
Veerupana and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1965
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (M/s. E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, Advocates, with him), for Appellant, Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor -General of India (Mr. R. V. Pillai, Advocate, with him), for Respondents 1 and 2; M/s. M. M. Kshatriya and R. Thiagarajan, Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
E.C.AGARWAL, M.M.KSHATRIYA, P.C.AGRAWAL, R.THIAGARAJAN, R.V.PILLAI, S.P.SINHA, S.V.Gupta
E.C.AGARWAL, M.M.KSHATRIYA, P.C.AGRAWAL, R.THIAGARAJAN, R.V.PILLAI, S.P.SINHA, S.V.Gupta
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is prospective and does not apply to successions opening before its commencement. Section 14(1) converts a limited estate into full ownership but does not confer title on a female Hindu who is in possession of property as a trespasser.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6, 8 and 14(1) - Devolution of property of a male Hindu dying intestate - Retrospective operation - The words "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate" and "shall devolve" indicate that the property must belong to a person who dies after the commencement of the Act - Section 8 is not retrospective in operation and does not apply where succession opened before the Act came into force. (Paras 3, 4 and 5)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - Property possessed by a female Hindu - Full ownership - The section contemplates that a Hindu female, who would have been a limited owner in the absence of this provision, becomes a full owner - The object is to extinguish the "limited estate" or "widow's estate" - The section applies only to property to which the female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however restricted - It does not confer title on a female Hindu who is in possession of the property of the last male holder as a trespasser without any right to the property. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
A female Hindu was in possession of properties belonging to her step-son who had died intestate prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A decree for possession was passed in favor of the nearest heirs of the deceased. During execution proceedings, the female Hindu claimed that she had become the full owner of the properties in her possession by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Section 8 of the Act is prospective and does not apply to successions that opened before its commencement. Furthermore, Section 14(1) does not validate illegal possession or confer title upon a person who is merely a trespasser without any prior vestige of title.
Issues: Whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has retrospective operation and whether Section 14(1) of the Act confers full ownership on a female Hindu in possession of property without any legal title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the language of Section 8, read with Section 6, clearly indicates it applies only to those dying after the Act's commencement. Regarding Section 14(1), the court held that the provision is intended to convert a limited interest into an absolute one; it cannot be interpreted to grant title to a trespasser or validate illegal possession.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Retrospective application of Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Acquisition of full ownership by a female Hindu in possession of property under Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 3 , 6 )
3. Section 8 applies only to persons dying after the Act's commencement — Section 14(1) converts limited ownership to full ownership but does not confer title on a trespasser. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is not retrospective — Section 14(1) requires a pre-existing vestige of title to convert limited ownership into full ownership. (Para 5 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order restoring the execution case upheld. (Para 8 )
6. Is Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, retrospective in operation?
No. The language of Section 8 indicates that the property whose devolution is provided for must be the property of a person who dies after the commencement of the Act. It does not apply where succession opened before the Act came into force. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does mere possession of property by a female Hindu make her the full owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
No. Possession alone is insufficient to attract Section 14(1). The female Hindu must have acquired some kind of title, however restricted, before or after the commencement of the Act. The section does not validate illegal possession or confer title on a trespasser. (Para 7 )
8. What is the legal objective of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
The objective is to extinguish the limited estate or widow's estate in Hindu law, converting a Hindu woman's limited ownership into full ownership with all powers of disposition, making the estate heritable by her own heirs rather than revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. (Para 7 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought by the Judgment -debtor. Eramma against the judgment and decree dated June 9, 1965 in R. A. No. 90 of 1957 of the High Court of Mysore setting aside the order of the District Judge of Raichur, dated February 14, 1957 dismissing an execution petition.
2. The appellant - Eramma - and the 3rd respondent - Siddamma - were, at the relevant time, widows of Eran Gowda who also had a third wife - Sharnamma. By the said Sharnamma, Eran Gowda had a son called Basanna who died in the year 1347 F. (corresponding to 1936-37 A D.) at a time when he was the sole male holder of the property in dispute. After his death his stepmothers Eramma and Siddamma got into possession of the properties. Respondents 1 and 2 thereafter filed a suit in the Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga claiming that they, as the nearest heirs of Basanna, were entitled to all the properties left by him and seeking to recover possession thereof from his stepmothers - Eramma and Siddamma. The suit was contested by Eramma on the ground that she had adopted Sogan Gouda, respondent No. 4 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been given of her by her husband Eran Gowda. It was claimed by Siddamma that she had adopted Sharnappa, respondent No. 5 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been conveyed under a will. The trial Court rejected the case of Eramma but upheld that of Siddamma. On appeal to the High Court, Siddamma s claim of adoption was also negative. In the result the High Court passed a decree in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Eramma and Siddamma thereafter applied to the High Court for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court. Siddamma was grated such certificate but the High Court refused to grant a certificate to Eramma who filed an application in this Court for special leave. During the pendency of these proceedings the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force with effect from June 17, 1956. Respondents 1 and 2 have put to execution the decree granted by the High Court in their favour. Eramma filed an objection in the Execution Court on the ground that she had been in possession of half the properties since the death of her husband and the decree was non-executable in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that she had now become full owner of the properties of which she is in possession. The case of Eramma was accepted by the District Judge, Raichur who dismissed the execution case on February 14, 1957. Respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the Mysore High Court against the order of the District Judge dismissing the execution case. The appeal was allowed by the High Court on the ground that Hindu Succession Act 1956 was not applicable to the case and Eramma did not acquire full ownership under S. 14 (1) of that Act. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of he District Judge dated February 14, 1957 dismissing the execution case and restored the execution case to file of the District Judge for being dealt with in accordance with law.
3. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Sinha contended, in the first place, that under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the appellant being the step-mother is entitled to inherit the properties of Baswan Gouda in preference to respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Sinha conceded that Baswan Gouda died on October 23, 1936 long before the coming into operation of Hindu Succession Act. It was, however submitted for the appellant that S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was retrospective in operation and the appellant must be held to be in possession of the properties in her own right. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. Sinha is not warranted by the language of S. 8 which is to the following effect :
"8. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of he Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs being the r
