TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Court as well as the High Court on-second appeal. There is no doubt that Wadhawa Singh's widow had no right to male a gift of the property which she inherited from her husband in 1933 and the decree obtained by the appellants, who were reversioners to her husband's estate would bind the respondent who was also a party, to that suit. The question then is-whether the-coming into force, of the Hindu succession Act and the subsequent gift made by the widow in favour of the respondent make any difference. Had not the widow made the gift to the respondent in 1933, she would have become an absolute owner of the property as a result of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the gift made by her subsequently in favour of the respondent could not have been questioned. But having made the gift in 1933 she was not in possession of the property inherited by her from her husband and, therefore, did not become a full owner, with the result that the subsequent gift made by her in favour of the respondent was of no effect. This point that unless the limited owner is in possession of the property section 14 does not apply has now been settled by decisions of this Court beyond dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and in the cases before the Punjab and Mysore High Courts did not arise before this Court on the earlier occasion. The decisions of the Madras High Court and the Patna High Court are not directly in point. In the case before this Court the two women were in possession of property whose last male holder, who had died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, was their step son. They were not, therefore in legal possession of the properties of the last male holder. The question that had to be decided was whether because of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act they were entitled to succeed under s. 8, and the further question whether s. 14 would be attracted as they were actually in possession. It was held that as they were not legally in possession s, 14 would not apply, It was in that context that it was said that where a male Hindu died before the; Act came into force i.e., where succession opened before the s. 8 of the Act will have no application, The point that succession might open not only when the male Hindu died but also subsequently again when a limited owner who succeeds him dies was not taken into account. There was no need and no occasion to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht about by the Act would then be in full force. In the argument before their Lordships, reliance was placed upon the words dying intestate in the Act as connoting the future tense, but their Lordships agree with the 'view of the Lahore High Court in 17 Lah 356() Mt. Rajpali Kunwer v. Surju Rai (58 All. 1041).) at p. 367, that the words are a description of the status of the deceased and have no reference and are not intended to have any reference to the time of the death of a Hindu male. The expression merely m eans in the case of intestacy of a Hindu male . To place this interpretation on the Act is not to give a retrospective effect to its provisions, the materials point of time being the date when the ,.succession opens, namely, the death of the widow. On the position of reversioners in Hindu Law, opinions have been expressed by this Board from time to time with which the views of the learned Chief Justice in 58 All. 1041() Shakuntala Devi v. Kambsalya Devi (17 Lah 356).) mentioned above, are in agreement. It was said, for instance, that until the termination of the widow's estate, it is impossible to say who are the persons who will be entitled to succeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive effect to s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act whereas it is only prospective. As the Privy Council pointed out it means no such thing. The accepted position under the Hindu Law is that where a limited owner succeeds to an estate the succession to the estate on her death will have to be decided on the basis that the last full owner died on that day. It would be unreasonable to hold that in such a circumstance the law as it existed at the time when the last male holder actually died should be given effect to. If the person who is likely to succeed at the time of the limited owner's death is not, as happens very often, likely to be the person who would have succeeded if the limited owner had not intervened, there is nothing unreasonable in holding that the law as to the person who is entitled to succeed on the limited owner's death should be the law then in force and not the law in force at the time of the last full owner's death. The Madras High Court thought that the decision of the Privy Council in Duni Chand v. Anar Kali (supra) was based upon a legal fiction and that fiction cannot be given effect to except for a limited purpose. The Mysore High Court also though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopting the interpretation we place on section 8 apart from the fact that, as earlier pointed out, the interpretation does not amount to giving retrospective effect to section 8. of course, if the property had already vested in a person under the ,old Hindu Law it cannot be divested. We must also point out that the classes of cases where such a question is likely to arise is very limited. Where a widow, mother or daughter was in possession of the estate on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act she would become full owner under the provisions of the S. 14 of the Act. Even if a widow was in possession of the share belonging to her in the joint family estate tinder the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to property Act, 1937, she would become a full owner under s. 14. In both those cases S. 8 would have no operation. It is only in rare cases, like the present, that the question is likely to arise at all and we can see no reason either in principle or on authority why the principle consistently followed under the earlier Hindu Law that on the death of the limited owner succession opens and would be decided on the basis that the last male owner died on that day, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
