AJIT KAUR @ SURJIT KAUR versus DARSHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 04-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
AJIT KAUR @ SURJIT KAUR
v.
DARSHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2010)
APRIL 04, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR  AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 14(1) – Property of a female
Hindu to be her absolute property –  Mere possession of property
by a female, if sufficient to claim right u/s. 14(1) – Held: 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 – Section 14(1) clearly
envisage that the possession of the female must be under some vestige
of a claim, right or title or under any of the devise which has been
purported under the law – On facts, claim of the appellant-daughter
from the second marriage, that property orally gifted to her mother
by her father in 1950, became her mother’s absolute property after
the commencement of the 1956 Act, and Will executed by the father
could not operate qua that property even if it is assumed to be valid,
cannot be accepted – Appellant though was holding possession but
not any valid possession over the subject property and 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
s. 14(1).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 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 B-
deceased including the land in dispute to the exclusion of
defendant-appellant. The finding of fact recorded under the
impugned judgment in reference to a later Will on which much
emphasis was laid by the appellant, it was observed that the
propounder of the Will was legally required not only to prove the
due execution of the Will but also to dispel all suspicious
circumstances which may have existed in its due execution of
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 443
   443
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
the said Will and it was observed that the later Will claimed by
the present appellant cannot be taken to be duly proved and being
a finding of fact duly supported by the material on record, there
is no perversity or manifest error in the finding to be reviewed
by this Court in the instant appeal. [Para 13][450-D-G]
1.2 The mutation of a property in the revenue records are
fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has
it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in
whose favour mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue.
At the same time, the effect of a declaratory decree to restore
the property alienated to the estate of the alienor and until and
unless the alienees are able to convince the court that they have
no subsisting interest in the property, the heirs of the alienees
would be entitled to the benefits of the property as per the law of
succession. The effect of the operation of the said declaratory
decree would be to restore the land in dispute to the said estate
of B-deceased and the succession would be deemed to have
opened on 27.03.1973 when B died. On his death, the estate left
behind him including the land in dispute would devolve upon his
heirs as per their entitlement and after the registered Will dated
5.01.1973 has been upheld by the High Court and attained finality,
its consequence was to follow accordingly. [Para 14][450-G-H;
451-A-C]
1.3 The submission of the appellant that the appellant being
in possession of the subject property in question at the time when
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and by virtue of
Section 14(1) became an absolute owner of the subject property
and the decree being a nullity is inexecutable and it is a
jurisdictional error against the policy of legislature, cannot be
accepted since Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 clearly envisage
that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some
vestige of a claim, right or title or under any of the devise which
has been purported under the law. In the instant case, the appellant
was not holding any valid possession over the subject property
and 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.
[Para 15][451

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.