LexGOPAL SINGH & ANR. versus DILE RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
GOPAL SINGH & ANR.
1-·
v.
DILE RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
OCTOBER 6, 1987
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.14--Properties inherited by wife
y
from husband in 1942-Limited ownership upto 1956-Thereafter
absolute estate-Whether competent to transfer the properties by will-
....
Gift of property by widow having life interest declared ineffective-
c
Effect of.
-{-
The predecessors-in-interest of the parties were co-reversioners of
the testator, a Hindu widow. Prior to 1943 she executed a deed of gift in
favour of the father of the appellants of certain properties in which she
had life interest. Decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs the
D
trial court made a declaration that the gift of the land in favour of the
defendant/appellants was ineffective against reversionary rights of the
plaintiffs after the death of the donor. Allowing the appeal, the appel-
late court passed a compromise decree declaring the gift deed ineffec-
live in respect of the land. Subsequent after the enactment of the Hindu
Succession Act, the widow executed a will in respect of all her proper-
~
E
ties in favour of the appellants. The suit and the appeal against it were
dismissed. But the High Court found the resondents entitled to claim
possession of half of the share of the land earlier gifted away.
Allowing the appeal by special leave,
F
HELD: 1. The effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is that a
female Hindu can transfer her property by will. Since in the instant }
case, the will was subsequent to this period she had absolute estate and
full capacity to make the will. [382B l
2.1 When the widow inherited the properties from her husband
G
in 1942 she had only life interest in the said properties. She was a
limited owner upto 1956 when the Act came into force. If she had gifted
away her properties during that period she would not have become
k~
absolute owner after coming into operation of the Act and would not
have been competent to bequeath the properties by will. However, by
the compromise decree it was declared that the purported gift deed was
H
legally invalid. The effect of that declaration was that she continued to
378
GOPAL SINGH v. DILE RAM [MUKHARJI, J.]
379
4
be the limited owner of the properties thereafter until 1956 when by
virtue of s. 14 of the Act her limited estate became absolute estate. She was,
A
therefore, competent to dispose it of when she made the will. f381G-H; 382EI
2.2 It cannot be said that the father of the respondents did not
challenge the gift till the life time of the widow, and that he filed the said
suit only for the purpose of avoiding operation of the gift after her
B
lifetime. The compromise decree should be construed as that the parties
agreed that the properties would be enjoyed by the widow till her
lifetime and the gift made by her in favour of the appellant's father
..:
would remain operative till the lifetime of the widow but not beyond
that. [381E-F]
2.3 The lower courts on facts have held that the will was genuine c
- }
and properly executed. If that is so, then the claim of the appellants,
who are the legatees under the will, cannot be disputed. [3828]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1686
of 1978.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1978 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 59 of 1969.
--1
Tapas Ray and S.K. Jain for the Appellants.
\
E
S.K. Bagga for the Respondents.
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is
from the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
F
-"""-
dated 27th April, 1978.
In order to appreciate the controversy it is relevant to refer the
few facts. Prior to 1943 Mst. Shem @ Bhushehri was having life in-
terest in the properties mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint in Civil
Case No. 159 dated 19.7.63. She executed a deed of Gift in favour of G
Shri Dhari, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in respect of 43-14
.~-~
bighas of land and a building mentioned in clause l(f) of the Plaint. On
26. l l.48 Shri Hari Ram filed a Civil Suit No. 63 of 1948 in the Court of
Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi for possession of the property in
terms of the alleged compromise pursuant to 'Yhich the gift was made
to Shri Dhari or in the alternative to get a declaration that the deed of
H
A
B
c
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.