BADRI PERSHAD versus SMT. KANSO DEVI

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 26-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BADRI PERSHAD 
v. 
SMT. KANSO DEVI 
August 26, 1969 
B 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
c 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), s. 14(1) 
and (2)-Widow in-
heriting property under s. 3(1), Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 
(18 of 1937)-Award aJ/ottin11 her share before the coming Into force of 
the 1956-Act-Award describing her right as widow's 
estate-Whether 
widow's rights governed by s. 14(1) ors. 14(2). 
A Hindu, owning his self-acquired properties, died in 1947 lea·. ing five 
sons and a· widow. In 1950, an arbitrator was appointed for dividing the 
assets and liabilities among the heirs. The arbitrator gave bis award and a 
decree was passed in terms of the award. 
Under the award, the widow 
was allotted her share df the properties and it was stated that she was to 
have a widow's estate in those properties. 
On the question whether, 
on the coming into force of the Hin~u 
Succession Act, 1956, she became a full owner of the properties 
under 
s. 14(1) or only had a restricted estate in such properties under s. 14(2). 
HELD: The words 'possessed' and 'acquired' ins. 14(1) are used with 
the widest possible meaning, so that, the 'possession' may be either 2.ctual 
or constructive and the 'acquisition' can be in any manner 
whatsoever. 
Hence, where a female Hindu has a share in joint properties which are 
later on partitioned by metes and bounds and she gets possession of the 
properties allotted to her, before 
the coming 
into force df the 
1-Iindu 
Succession Act, she was not only 'possessed' of that pToperty at the time 
of the coming into force of the Act ~ut had also 'acquired' it before its 
;ommencement. 
The mere fact that the partition was by 
means of an 
arbitration award would not bring the matter within s. 14(21 as s. 14(1) 
had already become fully applicable. Section 14(2) is in the nature of a 
proviso or an exception to s. 14( 1) and comes into 
operation only if 
acquisition in any of the methods indicated the·rein is made for the first 
time without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu to the 
1Propertv. [98 F-H; 99 A-C, FJ 
In the present case, the widow inherited the property under s, 3 (I) of 
the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and was therefore in 
'possession' of it within the meaning of t'.iat word ins. 14(1), and, when 
the award separated her share by metes and bounds, she 'acquired' the 
property within •be meaning of that section. Therefore, she had become 
full owner of the property in her possession under s. 14(1) on the coming 
into force of the Hindu Succession Act, even though previously she was a 
limited owner. [97 G-H; 98 D-E; 99 E-FJ 
Gummalapura Taggina 
Matada 
Kotturuswami v. Setra 
Veerayya, 
[1959) Supp. l S.C.R. 968, Munno/al v, Rai Kumar [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
418 and Sukhram v. Gauri Shankar, [1968) l S.C.R. 47C, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1937 of 
1966. 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 19, 1965 of 
Ii 
the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 251-D of 1964. 
S. T. Desai and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, K. L. Mehta, Yogeshwar Dayal, M. M. Kshatriya 
and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J, 
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment 
of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench, Delhi). The facts may 
be briefly stated : One Gajju Mal had five sons, Badri Pershad, 
Ganesh Dass, Devi Chand, Narain Das and Ishar Das. 
The first 
four were by his first wife, whereas the 5th sooi Ishar Das was by 
his second wife Smt. Kanso Devi. 
Gajju Mal died in 1947 leav-
ing him surviving the said five sons and Smt. Kanso Devi. On 
August 5, 1950 Tulsi Ram Seth was appointed by the parties as 
an arbitrator for resolving certain differences which had arisen 
relating to partitiOIL of the urban immovable properties and other 
assets and liabilities left by Gajju Mal. 
On October 31, 1950 
the arbitrator gave his award. 
Under clause 6 of this award 
Smt. Kanso Devi was awarded three sets of property including 
bungalow No. 20, Alipore Road, Delhi. 
The award was made 
the rule of the court. 
It was stated in the award tha~ Smt. Kanso 
Devi would have a widow's estate in the properties awarded to her. 
It was also provided that the immovable properties allotted and 
awarded to the various parties would be individuall

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