BAI VAJIA (DEAD) BY L. RS . versus THAKORBHAI CHELABHAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 20-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

291 
BAI VAJIA (DEAD) BY L. RS . 
A 
• 
v. 
THAKORBHAI CHELABHAI AND ORS. 
February 20, 1979 
B 
[P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1) and (2), Scope of-Interpreta-
) -Oon of Statute-Legislature does not e111ploy n1eaningles~ language . 
. 
-~ 
c 
-, 
.. 
As per the decree in a partition suit dated August, 18, 1909 Motabbai an.:t 
two sons of Mohanbhai being two predecessors in interest of the 
plaintiffs 
respondents \Vere burdened with the responsibility of paying an yearly mainte-
nance allowance of Rs. 42/- to Btai Vajia appellant on Magsher Sud 2 of every 
year. The decree further provided that in the event of default in payment of 
'SUCh allowance continuing for a period of a month 
after the due date, 
Bai 
D 
Vajia_ would be entitled to take possessi9n of the land allotted to them nod.er 
the decree viz. Survey Nos. 31, 403, 591, 611, 288 and 659/3 in lieu of the 
maintenance awarded to her and would enjoy the income thereof without how-
ever being competent to sell, mortgage, bequeath, gift or otherwise transfer 
the same. The decree declared that any alienation made by Bai Vajia in con-
travention of the direction given by the decree in that behalf would be void . 
.By clause 8 of the decree Motabhai and, sons of Mohanbbai were also deprived 
E 
of the right of alienati.,pn of the land during the lifetime of Bai Vajia. Default 
having been made in the payment of maintenance to her according to the 
terms of the decree, the appellant, took out execution and obtained possession 
.of the lands in question, which she continued to enjoy till October 21, 
1963 
when she made a sale of -Survey No. 31 in favour of one D. P. Desai. The sale 
was challenged by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 110/66 \1lhich was decreed by 
the trial court. The District Court in first appeal conftrn1ed it and the lJigh 
F 
_,,.........,_Court in second appeal upheld the decree of Ba.i Vajia . 
L 
Allowing the appear of the Legal Representative by special leave, the Court. 
HELD: 1. A con1bined reading of sub-sections (1) £n1d (2) of Section 14 of 
the Hindu Succession Act and the Explanation following sub section (1) makes 
it clear, that sub-section (2) does not operate to take property acquired by 
a Hindu female in lieu of mainten1111ce or arrears of maintenance (\vhich is 
property specifically included in the enumeration contained in this Explanation) 
out of the purview of sub-section (1). [311 D-E] 
. 2. For the applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 14 t\vb 
conditions 
G 
must cocxis t namely. 
H 
(l) the concerned female Hindu must be possessed of property; and 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 3 s.c.it. 
(2) such property must be possessed by her as a "limited owner". 
If these two conditions are fulfilled, the sub section gives her the right to 
~ 
hOld the property as a full owner irrespective of the fact whether she acquiro4 
it before or after the commencement of the Act. [309 D-F] 
A 
The Explanation declares that the property mentioned in sub section (1) , 
includes both n1ovable and immovable property and then proceeds to enume~ 
rate the mod~s of acquisition of various kinds of property which the sub-sectio• 
would embrace. Two such modes are "in lieu of maintenance or arrears of 
maintenance", and "any such property held by her as Stridhana" immediately 
before the commencement of the Act. It, therefore, follows that the Leg:islatu~: i. 
in its wisdom took pains to specify all kinds of "Stridhana" in the Explanatio~ 
and declared that the same would form "property" within the meaning of that ' 
word e.s used in sub-section (i). This was done "to achie\le a social purpoSe by 
..:--
bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu 
Society". It was ao step in the direction of practical recognition of equality of th1 
sexes and was meant to elevate women from a subservient position in the econo-
mic field to a pedestal where they could exercise full powers 
of 
enjoyment 
and disposal of the property held by them as owners, untrammelled by artifi-
cial limitations placed on their right of ownership by a society in which tho 
will of the dominant male prevailed to bring about a subjugation of the oppo-
site sex. It was also a step calculated to ensure uniformity in the law relatin: 
to the nature of ownership of 'Stridhana'. This dual purpose 
underlying the 
Explanation must be borne in mind and given effect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.