TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeing a declaration that the sale in favour of the appellant herein will not bind him as he was the absolute owner of the suit house. One Kamlawati widowed daughter-in-law of Babu Ram Ratanlal, sold the suit house to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1965 for a valid consideration. That sale was challenged by Rejendra Shankar. grandson of Babu Ram Ratanlal through his daughter, (predecessor in title of the respondents) on the ground that his grandfather by the will dated December 25, 1920 registered on 5.1.1921 had given only a limited interest in the suit house to the said kamlawati and, therefore, the sale will not be binding on him after the death of the said Kamlawati. Ch. Rajendra Shankar died pending suit. His legal representatives continued the suit. To appreciate the facts. minimal geneology and relevant clauses in the will are necessary which are given below: Ram Ratan Lal (died in 1921) Sital Prasad (died in 1920) Smt. Kamlawati (defendant No. 2) Smt. Dulari d/o Ram Ratan Lal (died in 1918) Prahalad Singh (died in 1922) Smt. Bittan w/o Prahalad Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by my wife Mst. Prayag Devi and residential house bearing municipal No. 69, situated at Mohalla Kharan Sarai, Town Unnao alongwith the court-yard and bounded as detailed hereunder will also be owned and possessed by my wife. But my daughter-in-law Mst. Kamlawati during the life time of my wife, shall be entitled to reside in the said house and nobody shall be entitled to reside in the said house and nobody shall be entitled to turn her out. After the death of my wife, Mst. Kamlawati shall become the owner of the said house and remain in possessin thereof. But both these ladies shall have no right to alienate the aforesaid residential houses. the Sale deed of this residential house, the date of execution of which is not remembered by me, is in the name of my father-in-law Munshi Beni Madhav Prasad, but in reality I am the owner of the same and I have already spent a considerable amount on the construction of the house from the day of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, I have a right to make a will in respect thereof. (Emphasis supplied). Clause 3:- My daughter s sons shall continue to reside in the residential house referred to clause 2 alongwith their maternal grand-mother an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in suit as now the absolute rights have reverted and have vested with Smt. Kamlawati. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao held that the vendor of the appellant, namely, Kamlawati was given only a life interest under the will and that the original plaintiff Rajendra Shanker had a vested interest in the suit property in view of Section 19 of the Transfer of property Act read with Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act. The earned Additional District Judge, also held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act will not come to the aid of the appellant herein as his vendor got only life interest which will not enlarge into absolute estate in view of the exception provided in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. On that basis, he held that the sale in favour of the appellant will not bind the original plaintiff and his successors in interest. Accordingly, he decreed the suit reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. On further appeal to the High Court after appreciating clauses 1 and 2 in the will, on the scope of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act held as follows:- The readin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no Property. If the husband has property then the right of the widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it the legal obligation to maintain the widow. (2) though the widow s right to maintenance is not a right to property but it is undoubtedly a pre-existing right in property, i.e. it is a jus ad rem not jus in rem and it can be enforced by the widow who can get a charge created for her maintenance on the property either by an agreement or by obtaining a decree from the civil court; (3) that the right of maintenance is a matter of moment and is of such importance that even if the joint property is sold and the purchaser has notice of the widow s right to maintenance, the purchaser is legally bound to provide for her maintenance (4) that the right of maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu Law long before the passing of the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore, a pre-existing right; (5) that the right or maintenance flows from the social and temporal relationsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is recognised and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law and has been strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurists starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu. Such a right maynot be a right to property but it is a right against property and the husband has a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the family has property, the female has the legal right to be maintained therefrom. If a charge is created for the maintenance of a female, the said right becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate, even without a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognising such a right does not confer any new title but merely endorses or confirms the preexisting rights. (2) Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have been couched in the widest possible terms and must be liberally construed in favour of the 1956 Act and promote the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by this long needed legislation. (3) Sub-section (2) of Section 14 is in the nature of a proviso and has a field of its own without interferring with the operation of Section 14(1) materially. The proviso should not be construed in a manner so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words restricted estate used in Section 14(2) are wider than limited interest as indicated in Section 14(1) and they include not only limited interest, but also any other Kind of limitation that may be placed on transferee. Bhagwati and Das Gupta, JJ. while concurring with Fazal Ali, J. held as follows:- It is settled law that a widow is entitled to maintenance out of her deceased husband s estate, irrespective whether that estate may be in the hands of his male issue or it may be in the hands of his coparceners. The joint family estate in which her deceased husband had a share is liable for her maintenance and she has a right to be maintained out of the joint family properties and though, as pointed out by this Court in Rani Bai vs. Shri Yadunandan Ram, her claim for maintenance is not a charge upon any joint family property until she has got her maintenance determined and made a specific charge either by agreement or a decree or order of a court, her right is not liable to be defeated except by transfer to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of her claim or even with notice of the claim unless the transfer was made with the intention of defeating her right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely recording the true legal position and that would not attract the applicability of sub-section (2) but would be governed by subsection (1) of Section 14. The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that where property is allotted to a widow under an instrument, decree, order or award prescribes a restricted estate for her in the property and subsection (2) of Section 14 would have no application in such as case. In the light of the above settled position which has been consistently followed and applied by this Court as late as in Nazar Singh and others vs Jagjit Kaur and Others (1996) 1 SCC 35), if we look into the relevant clauses extracted above from the will in question, there can be no doubt that in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the property given to Kamlawati was in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that property she was to hold absolutely notwithstanding the restrictions placed in the will on her right to alienation. The only argument raised before us by the learned counsel for the respondents was that on the facts of this case Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applies and not Section 14(1). According to the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
