LexJAGANNATHAN PILLAI versus KUNJITHAPADAM PILLAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
JAGANNATHAN PILLAI
v.
KUNJITHAPADAM PILLAI & ORS.
APRIL 21, 1987.
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.)
'Hindu Succession Act, 1956: S. 14( 1)-Hindu widow regainspos-
session of property subsequent to commencement of Act-Nature of her
y
right or interest-Whether full or limited owner.
C
· . ' Section14(1) orthe Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that any
property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after
the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof
D
· and not as a limited owner. The Expl~nation to the sub-section induded
property acquired by a female Hindu by purchase within the expression
'property.'
The Hindu widow, In the instant case, who bad acquired a limited
estate from her husband by reason of his death was not In possession on
the date of the enforcement of the Act, she having transferred the
property in favour of an alienee. But, later the possession was restored
to her upon the original alienee reconveying the property to her, revers-
E
Ing the transaction. Her right to the said property was assailed by the
appellant before the Madras High Court and a question arose as to
whether upon the reconveyance or the very 'property, which she had
, alienated, after the enforcement of the Act she would become full owner
In respect ofsuch a property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Act.
F
' The High Court following Its earlier ·view In Chinnakolandai
· I
''·
Goun41:n v. Thanji Gounder, (ILR 1966 I Madras 326) and that of
'· Punjab High Court 1.n Teja Singh v. Jagat Singh, (AIR 1964 Punjab
403), Bombay High Court in Ramgowda Aunagowda v. Bhausaheb,
(ILR 52 Bom. 1) and Gujarat High Court in Champa v. Chandrakant
(Am 1973 Gujarat 227), held that she would become an absolute owner
G
or such a property In the aforesaid situation.
In this appeal by certificate, it was contended for the appellant,
relying on the view pronounced by the Orissa High Court in Ganesh
'-c.. Mahanta v. Sukria Bewa, (AIR 1963 Orissa 167) and Andhra Pradesh
· / High Court In Medicherla Venkataratnam v. Siddani Palamma, 1970
H II Andhra Weekly Reporter 264), thats. 14(1) of the Act does not come
1070
- ----- ------~
JAGANNATHAN v. KUNJITHAPADAM
1071
Into play in the case of a retfansfer of the property to the widow suhse-
A
qnent to the commeneement of the Act, as the transferee or the donee.
1
who had only a limited interest, cannot transfer a title higher than the
title that they themselves had in the property.
Dismissing the appeal, the court,
B
HELD: 1. A Hindu woman is entitled to become an absolute
-'"1
owner of the prop~!1y which she had alienated, upon its reconveyance
to her by the transferee after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession
-l
Act, 1956 by virtue ofs. 14(1). [1082G; 1075B]
2.1 The whole purpose of s. 14(1) is to make a widow who has a c
limited interest a full owner In respect of the property in question
~:
regardless of whether the acquisition was prior to or subsequent to the
commencement of the Act. It comes into operation at the point of time
when the right of the Hindu widow to the pr9perty is called into ques·
tion. All that has to be shown by her Jhen is that she had acquired the
property B!ld that she was possessed of the property. Once it is shown D
by her that she was p11ssessed of the property on that date in the eyes of
law the property held by her would be held by her as "full owner" and
not as limited owner. [1079G; 1075GH; 1077BC]
..¥
2.2 Possession, physical or constructive or in legal sense, on the
date of coming into operation of the Act is not the &ine-qua-non for the
E
-
acqnisitio11 of full ownership in property by the Hindu female. The
expression "possessed of'' used in s. 14(1) pertains to the acquisition of
a right or interest in the property and not to physical possession
·+-
acquired by force or without any legal right. The expression "whether
acquired before or after the commencement of the Act" used ins. 14(1)
makes it evident that any property possessed by a Hindu female whether F
't
acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, would he held by
her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. H the legislature had
not contemplated a Hindu widow becoming possessed of a property by
virtue of an acquisition after the commencement of the Act the aforesaid
expression would not have been used. [1076FG; Ul81C; 1076CD; 1081AB]
G
. ""{
2.3 When the Hindu female iExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.