LAXMAPPA AND ORS. versus SMT. BALAWA KOM TIRKAPPA CHAVDI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 06-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAXMAPPA AND ORS." 
v. 
SMT. BALAWA KOM TIRKAPPA CHAVDI 
AUGUST 6, 1996 
8 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNC!IHI, AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
S.14(1) and (2)-Hindll widow adopting her brother as her son with 
C the consent of her fathe1-Father and adoptive son jointly making a gift of 
some a!jlicuftural land in her favour in 1950 with the condition that Oil her 
death prope1ty would devolve on dono1'~After the enactment of the Act, 
widow filing a suit for declaration that size was full owner of tlze &ifted 
land-Held, High Cowt was 1ight in holding thats. 14(1) of the Act was 
attracted to tlze gift and the widow, had become a complete owner of the 
D prope1ties gifted. 
Hindu Law : 
Father's obligation to maintain his destitute widowed dauglzte1'-lield, 
a moral obligation even though not enforceable under law, would by acknow-
E ledwnent, b1ing it to the level of a legal obligatio11, for it would be pe1fectly 
legitimate for the father to treat himself obliged out of love and affection to 
n1aintain his destitute daughte1; even ilnpinging to a reasonable extent on his 
ancestral property-Kmta of tlze family /zas in some circumstances power to 
alie11ate ancestral property to meet an obligation of the kind. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 383 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.6.83 of the Karnataka High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 480 of 1976. 
G 
Devendra Singh for the Appellants. 
Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
The plaintiff-respondent (who is now dead and represented by her 
308 
-· 
LAXMAPPAv. BALAWAKOMTIRKAPPACHAVDI 
309 
daughter) had a brother. She adopted her brother as her son with the A 
consent of her father. She thus became the adoptive mother of the adopted 
son. That relationship obligated the son to maintain his mother. On the 
other hand, she remained a daughter of her father. Widowed as she was, 
her natural father and her adopted son jointly made a gift of some agricul-
tural land in her favour, acknowledging in the deed thereof that since she 
was destitute and unable to maintain herself, provision had to be made for 
her, for her lifetime. It was however specified therein that after her death 
the property would devolve upon the donors' which expression included 
their legal heirs. This Deed of 31.7.1950 was claimed by the plaintiff-
respondent to have matured into full ownership on the coming into force 
B 
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by the thrust of C 
Section 14(1) of the Act for which she filed a suit for declaration etc. Her 
suit was resisted on the ground that Section 14(2) was applicable and that 
the gift was conditional to be reverting back on her death to the line of the 
donors. The ultimate finding recorded by the High Court is that it is a gift 
to which Section 14(1) of the Act is attracted and therefore the plaintiff-
D 
respondent had become a complete owner of the properties gifted. 
Mr. Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, has candidly 
stated that insofar as the adopted son was concerned, he was legally bound 
to maintain his adoptive mother and therefore his half share in the donated 
land would come within the grip of Section 14(1) to which the plaintiff-
E 
respondent could legitimately claim to have become its absolute owner. 
Insofar as the other half donated by the father of the plaintiff-respondent 
was concerned, he points out that there was no such legal obligation on 
him to maintain her and thus that part of the gift would fall within the 
sweep of Section 14(2) of the Act. Sequelly, it is claimed that half of the F 
property must return to the line of the father who has other grandsons, 
with whom he shared the property as ancestral. 
The law on the subject was taken stock of by the High Court by 
quoting para 546 of Mulla's book on Hindu Law, 15th Edition, which 
provides that a Hindu father is bound to maintain his unmarried daughters, G 
and on the death of the father, they are entitled to be maintained out of 
his estate. The position of the married daughter is somewhat different. It 
is acknowledged that if the daughter is unable to obtain maintenance from 
her husband, or, after his death, from his family, her father, if he has got 
separate property of his own, is under a moral, though not a legal, obliga-
H 
310. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
tion to maintain her. The High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.