LexKALAWATIBAI versus SOIRYABAI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
...
KALAWATIBAI
v.
SOIRYABAI AND OTHERS
MAY l, 1991
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956): ss. 2, 14--Hindu
· widow's estate-Alienation by gift to female reversioner prior to 1956--
Whether alienee could become absolute .owner-'Limited owner'-
Meaning of: s. 4--Hindu Law-Applicability of.
'
Hindu Law: Gift of widow's estate without legal necessity-
Reversioner can claim possession within 12 years of widow's death-
Whether alienee could claim adverse possession against reversioners
during life time of widow.
A
B
c
Transfer of Property Act, 1898: S. 41-Estoppel-Whether ap-
D'
plicable against reversioners in case of gift of widow's estate in favour of
one ofreversioners.
Statutory Interpretation: Section-Ascertainment of meaning-
Should be read in its entirety-Marginal note should not be resorted to
when language is plain and simple.
E
A Hindu widow executed a gift deed in 1954 of the entire estate
inherited hy her from her husband in favour of the appellant, one of her
daughters. This led to the filing of two cross-suits-one by the appellant
for permanent injunction basing her claim on the gift deed and the
other by the respondent, another daughter of the widow, for declara-
F
tion and partition assailing the validity of the gift deed and claiming
reversioners' right after death of the mother in 1968. The trial court
decreed appellant's suit on adverse possession and estoppel, but not on
s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as in its view the widow who
executed the gift deed in 1954, was incompetent to alienate widow's
estate by gift permanently.
G
The appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court on s. 14
of the Act, but opined that the appellant could not acquire any right by
'estoppel under s. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, against the reversio-
ners by reasons of the widow's mnduct'. It allowed the appeal of the
respondent and dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that adverse H
599
A
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] 2 S.C.R.
possession against the widow was not adverse against reversioners, and
the next reversioner was entitled to recover the possession of the pro-
perty or his share in it within 12 years from the date of the death of the
widow.
In second appeal the High Court, treating the finding of the trial
B
court on adverse possession as a finding of fact, held that possession of
the appellant must be deemed to be on behalf of the other co-sharers in
the absence of any evidence before ouster of the other sister. Aggrieved,
the appellant filed the appeals by special leave to this Court.
c
On the questions whether: (1) a Hindu widow could alienate by
gift the entire estate inherited by her from her husband in favour of one
of the female reversioners prior to enforcement of Act 30 of 1956, and.if
so, what was the nature of right that the donee got under law? and (2)
the donee became an owner of the widow's estate, a limited owner, an
owner with some right or title so as to acquire rights of absolute owner-
ship under s. 14 of the Act or a trespasser and acquired rights for
D adverse possession by perfecting her rights against the doner only or it
was essential to prescribe rights against reversioners as well?
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1.1 Prior to the coming into force of Act 30 of 1956 a
E
Hindu widow succeeding or inheriting any property from her husband
or as widow of predeceased son, held limited interest known as Hindu
women's estate, under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act,
1937. However, she had the right to enjoy or even destroy or dispose of
the property or alienate it hut such destruction or alienation should
have been impressed with legal necessity or for religious or charitable
F
purposes or for spiritual welfare of the husband. Necessary con-
sequences that flowed from an alienation for legal necessity was that
the property vested in the transferee or alienee, and the reversiouers
were precluded from assailing its validity. Since such an estate could
not be alienated under Hindu Law except in certain circumstances
and for specific purpose, the holder of the estate was known as limited
G
owner. {613C-D; 614F-G]
1.2 The expression 'limited owner' could not be understood
except as it was interpreted and understood in Hindu Law. The term
commonly means, a person with restricted rights as opposed to full
owner with absolute rights. InExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.