LexBINDUMATI BAI versus NARBADA PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F 988 BINDUMATI BAI v. NARBADA PRASAD October 28, 1976 [H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER JJ.] Hindu Law-If a co-widow can rdinquish right of sunivorsldp--W/u:ther after relinquishment, a widow can dispose of property by will. One Lakshmi Dayal died in 1952 leaving behind two widows, appellant and Shantibai. In 1954, Chandanbai widow of brother of Laxmi Dayal filed a suit ag11inst the appellant and Shantibai in respect of the properties left by tnkshmi Dayal. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellant, Shantibai and Chandanbai executed a partition deed alloting different propertie~ to each one of the widows. The partition deed was registered and necessary •mutation entries were made. The suit filed by Chandanbai WM disposed of in terms of the Partiti011 Deed. In September, 1955, Shantibai made a will in favour of the respondent and she died on 29-5-1956. After her death, the appellant took forcible possession of the suit land from the respondent. The respondent, there- fore, filed a suit against the appellant for possession of the land in dispute. The Trial Court, the first Appellate Court and the High Court in Second Appeal came to the conclusion that the appellant had relinquished her right of survivor- ship in lands which fell to the share of Shantibai and, therefore, decreed the respondent's suit. In an appeal by Special Leave the, appellant contended : 1. The appellant did not relinquish her right of survivorship. 2. It is not permissible for a Hindu co-widow to give up her right of 1- survivorship even by an agreement. • 3. Even if right of survivorship can be given up during the lifetime of the widows concerned, the property could bave been transfeJTed inter vivas but could not have been disposed of by a will. Dismi~sing the appeal, HELD : 1. It is clear from the Partition Deed and the evidence of the appellant herself that ~he had relinquished her right of survivo"hip. The find- ings of all the courts below to the effect that th~ appellant relinquished her right of survivorship are correct. [IJ90 B-C] 2. lt is permissible under Hindu Law for a co-widow to relinquish by \ agreement her right of survivorship in the property which falls to the "\ share of the other widow. [990 GJ Karpagathac/1i & Ors. v. Nagarathipathachi ,[19651 3 SCR 335 followed. Bliuowan Deen Dooboy v. Myna Baeo <1867) 11 MTA 487; Gauri Nath G Kakaji v. Caya Kaur (1928) LR 55 IA 299 referred. • H Commissioner of lncomo-Tax v. Smt. Indira Balakrish11a [1960] 3 SCR 513 517 distinguished. ' Ramakkal v. Ramasa_mi Naichan (1899) ILR, 22 Mad. 522, Sudalai Ammal v. Comathi A mmal (1912) 23 PLJ 355; Kai lash Chandra Chuckerburty v. Kashi Chandra Chuckorbutty [1897] ILR 24 Cal. 339; Subbammal v. Laksh- mana Iyer (1914) 26 MU 479; Ammani A.mmal v. Periasemi Udavan (1923) 4 5 MLJ 1 refeJTed to. · _3. The power o_f a co-wi~o:w to. execute a will i~ reSJ't'.Ct of the property falling to her share in the partition with the other co-widows 1s co-extensive with her power to tran~fer it intor vivos. / ') I BINDUMATI BAI v. NARBADA PD. (Khanna, J.) 989 CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 870 of 1968. A (From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.1967 of the Madhya Prades·h High Court in Second Appeal No. 436/64. G. L, Sanghi and D. N. Misra for the appellant. P. H. Pa;rekh (amicus curiae) for the respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by • KHANNA, J.-This appeal by special leave i8 against the judgment of tlf Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming on second appeal the decision of the trial court and the first appellate court whereby suit C for possession of the land in dispute had been decreed in favour of the. plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant. Laxmi Dayal died in 1952 leaving the lands in dispute and some other properties. He was succeeded by his two widows, Shantibai and Bindumati. In 1954 Chandanbai, widow of brother of Laxmi Dayal, filed civil suit No. 34A of 1954 against Shantibai and Bindu- mati in respect of the property left by Laxmi Dayal. During the pendency of that suit, a deed of partition was executed by Shantibai, Bindumati and Chandanbai, as a result of which each one of them was stated to have become full owner of the property which fell to her share. The partition deed was got registered and necessary muta- tion entries were made in accordance with that deed. On September 8,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.