9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving separately. There was even a litigation between them. Bhana and Smt. Banti had a daughter, namely, Ajit Kaur (Appellant) from the aforesaid wedlock. To settle the dispute between them, Bhana parted the suit land to Smt. Banti by way of gift for her maintenance way back in the year 1950. In furtherance thereof, mutation was also entered in favour of Smt. Banti bearing No. 3813 sanctioned on 25th February, 1950. The aforesaid gift came to be challenged by the original Plaintiff Darshan Singh in a Civil Suit No. 103/1953 for declaration under the customary law. It was claimed by him that the aforesaid gift by late Bhana in favour of Smt. Banti qua the ancestral property would not affect the reversionary rights of Darshan Singh(original Plaintiff). The aforesaid civil suit filed at the instance of Darshan Singh was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30th June, 1954 and it was held that the aforesaid gift by late Bhana in favour of Smt. Banti would not affect the reversionary rights of Darshan Singh and would operate only during the life time of Bhana. The Civil Appeal No. 101/1954 preferred by Banti against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land had been allotted in lieu of the original land during the consolidation proceedings. Both the wills set up by the Plaintiffs dated 5th January, 1973 and the Defendants dated 21st February, 1973 were held to be executed by Bhana. Learned trial Court further recorded a finding that Banti had become absolute owner of the suit property after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter being referred to as "Act 1956) and, therefore, the Plaintiffs could not take any benefit of the earlier decree and accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. 5. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, the appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court with regard to Banti having become absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of an oral gift executed by Bhana in the year 1950 and the gift came to be set aside and held that Smt. Banti could not be held to be the absolute owner of the suit property even after the commencement of the Act, 1956 inasmuch as her title to the suit property was to operate only during the life time of Bhana who died on 27th March, 1973. The judgment of the Court of appeal came to be challenged at the instance of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not operate qua that property even if it is assumed to be valid. The property gifted or otherwise given to the separated wife i.e. Banti before the enforcement of the Act, 1956 for maintenance of the separated wife now widow would hold the absolute right over the property after the Act, 1956 has come into force. 10. Learned Counsel further submits that no will could be executed by Bhana regarding the aforesaid ancestral property to his progeny since the subject property was in possession of Banti, in view of maintenance and irrespective of the nature of document/statement made by Bhana, the property would become absolute property of Banti on enforcement of Act, 1956 on 17th June, 1956. The reversionary rights of the Respondents'/Plaintiffs' declaration suit do not become effective when the succession opened after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and the decree is only to be effective if the reversionary rights existed when the succession opened on the death of Bhana the Karta and coparcener. The property does not revert to the co-parcenary or Hindu joint family or to Bhana as Karta and after the enforcement of Act, 1956, the succession is to be governed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 7th April, 2006 and the finding was recorded that will dated 21st February, 1973 has not been legally executed and proved. In the given circumstances, the Appellant has no legitimate right to claim possession by way of succession under the Act, 1956 and no error was committed in restoration of reversionary rights of the Respondents under the impugned judgment. 13. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court in the regular second appeal in separate proceedings initiated in reference to will dated 5th January, 1973 in RSA No. 933/1984 decided on 28th July, 2004 held to be validly executed and based on the recital of the will, it was held that the Plaintiffs became entitled to succeed to the entire property of Bhana (deceased) including the land in dispute to the exclusion of Defendant (Appellant herein). It may be relevant to note that the finding of fact recorded under the impugned judgment in reference to a later will dated 21st February, 1973 on which much emphasis was laid by the present Appellant, it was observed that the propounder of the will was legally required not only to prove the due execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved, opening of fiscal proceedings would not confer a right of acquisition by either of the devise which has been referred to under the explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. Section 14 of the Act, 1956 is as under: 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property -- (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.-- In this Sub-section, 'property' includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section(1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, however restricted the nature of her interest may be. The words "as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner" as given in the last portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 clearly suggest that the legislature intended that the limited ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. In other words, Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence of this provision, would have been limited owner of the property, will now become full owner of the same by virtue of this section. The object of the Section is to extinguish the estate called limited estate or "widow's estate" in Hindu law and to make a Hindu woman, who under the old law would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property with all powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. The Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 defines the word "property" as including "both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise ...". Sub-section (2) of Section 14 also refers to acquisition of property. It is true that the Explanation has not g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orses or confirms the pre-existing 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 females so as to advance the object 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 interfering with the operation of Section 14(1) materially. The proviso should not be construed in a manner so as to destroy the effect of the main provision or the protection granted by Section 14(1) or in a way so as to become totally inconsistent with the main provision. (4) Sub-section (2) of Section 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts, etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely declares or recognises a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. 19. Wherein V. Tulasamma and Ors. v. Sesha Reddy(Dead) by LRs, it was an admitted case before the Court that the suit property came in possession of the widow under a compromise in execution of decree of the Court, restricting her right of alienation in recognition of right to maintenance, having pre-existing right over the subject property in question on the date the Act, 1956 came into force(i.e. 17th June, 1956). In that reference, the claim was considered by this Court and held that the pre-existing right of the widow on the date of the commencement of the Act, 1956 will get her the absolute rights over the subject property. 20. In the instant case, the Appellant although was holding possession but not under any of the devise referred to under explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 and mere possession would not confer pre-existing right of possession over the subject property to claim full ownership rights after the Act, 1956 came into force by operation of law and this what was considered and negated by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 21. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 22. Pending app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
