CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus SARJUG SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 30-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
v. 
· • 
SARJUG SINGH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
C 
s. 14(1)-Hindu widow-In possession of share of her husband prior 
to coming into force of the Act-Held, became absolute owner in terms of 
s.14(1)-Gift deed executed by her valid-Land acquisition Act, 1894-Claim 
for compensation for land gifted by Hindu widow. 
Raghubar Singh and Ors. v. Guiab Singh & Ors., (1998] 6 SCC 314 
Dand Shakuntala Devi v. Kam/a and Ors., (2005] 5 SCC 390 , relied on. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. JOO-Second appeal-Findings of fact recorded by courts be/ow--
Jnte1ference with-Scope of-Held, while exercising its jurisdiction uls JOO, 
£High Court is required to formulate a substantial question of law relating to 
a finding of fact-Ordinarily, unless there exist sufficient and cogent reasons, 
findings of fact arrived by courts below are binding on High Court. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 2000. 
F 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.2.1999 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in S.A. No. 127 of 1995. 
E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh, Rajendra Rohtagi and Ms. Diksha Rai for the 
Appellants. 
G 
S.B. Upadhyay, Shiv Mangat Sharma and Ms. Kumud L. Das for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
880 
H 
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. v. SARJUG SINGH 
881 
ORDER 
One lshwar Dutta was the owner of the Property. He died leaving 
behind three Sons- Mahadeo, Hira and Mahabir died issueless. His Interest 
A 
in the Property, therefore, vested in Mahadeo and Mewa (son of Hira) who 
predecessor him. Mewa died in 1921-22 leaving behind a Son Damoder. 
Koleshra Devi was the widow of Damodar whose exact date of death is not B 
known but he is Said to have expired sometime aftepi!'J 932. 
The plaintiffs herein are heris of Ram Layak- one of the sons ofMahadeo 
whereas the respondent herein are heirs of Raja, another son of Mahadeo. 
The Properties in question bearing plot Nos. 901, 902 and 907 were 
acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The properties 
were mutated in the name of Damoder. 
The amount of compensation was paid to respondent Mona Devi. 
c 
D 
The appellants herein filed an application under section 30 of the Land 
Acquisition Act before the Collector whereupon a reference was made. One 
of the issues which fell for consideration before the Reference Judge under 
the Land Acquisition Act was as to whether the deed of gift executed by 
Koleshra Devi in respect of her half share of Plot No. 901 full share of plot 
No. 902 and three fourth share of plot No. 907 in Favour of the appellants E 
herein by deed of gift dated 7.5.1960 was valid in law. 
It was inter alia held that Koleshra Devi being possessed of the Share 
which vested in her on the death of her husband-Damoder in lieu of 
maintenance,, she become the absolute owner in terms of Section 14 (I) of F 
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 
The judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court was reversed 
by the First Appellate Court. 
The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment allowed the appeal G 
preferred by the respondents herein and affirmed judgment of the trial Court 
opining : 
" ... .It is not in dispute that mostt. Kauleshwara was maintenance 
holder and her husband had died before the year 1937. Nothing has 
come on record that she was put in possession over the lands, in lieu H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
of maintenance, which she gifted to the respondents. In absence of 
such evidence, she was not authorised to make a gift and Ext. I was 
invalid." 
The extent of the share of the parties herein are said to be as under: 
B Plot Originally in 
Share of petitioners 
Share of 
No. name of 
respondents 
901 Mahadeo 
Half 
Half 
902 Mew a 
Full (gifted by Koleshra Devi) 
c 903 Mahabir (Mewa Three Fourth (Half of Mawa 
One fourth (one 
Mahadeo) 
gifted by Koleshra Devi & 
One fourth of Mahadeo) 
fourth of Mahadeo) 
Total 
Three. fourth 
One fourth 
D 
The learned councel appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend 
that having regard to the fact that a finding of fact had been arrived at that 
Koleshra Devi was possessed of the property in question, the High Court 
committed a manifest error in interfering therewith. 
Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a decision of this Court 
E in Raghubar Singh and Ors. v. Guiab Singh & Ors., [1998) 6 SC

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