MAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMAL versus MAHARAJA PILLAI THILLANAYAKOM PILLAI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 03-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
A 
B 
MAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMAL 
v. 
MAHARAJ A PILLAI TRILLANA Y AKOM PILLAI AND 
ANOTHER 
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 
[B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Right of widow to property--
Whether absolute right under section 14( 1) or restricted right under 
section 14(2) of the Act. 
c 
Under.a family partition deed (Ex. D 1), the properties under 'A' 
\ 
schedule were allotted to Maharaja Pillai, and after his death, his __}-. 
widow was given the right to take the income from the properties. 
One of the sons of Maharaja Pillai filed a suit claiming his right to 
D l/3rd share in the properties above-said. The trial court held that the 
widow got absolute right over the properties in dispute under section 
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. On appeal, the appellate court 'held 
that the widow got only a restricted right under section 14(2) of the Act. 
On further appeal, the High Court mainly upheld the view of the first 
appellate court. Against the judgment of the High Court, appeal was 
E filed to this Court by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal and restoring the judgment of the trial court, 
the Court, 
HELD: The question to be decided is whether the widow got an 
F 
absolute right or a restricted right over the properties in the 'A' 
schedule after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. 
During the life time of Mabaraja Pillai, his wife (The widow in the case) 
was maintained by him. After his death, the widow was in exclusive 
possession of the 'A' schedule properties and was taking the income 
from those properties. She had a right to utilise that income for her 
G 
maintenance. That right was conferred on her under Ex. D. 1. The 
properties possessed by the widow fairly and squarely fall under Section 
14(1) of the Act. Tile property mentioned in section 14(1) may be 
acquired by a female by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu 
of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, etc. The right to mainte-
nance of a Hindu female is a personal obligation of the husband. If the 
H 
wife is put in exclusive possession of property with the right to take 
780 
\ >--
I 
j 
MAHARAJA PILLAI v. M.P. THILLANAYAKOM [SHETTY, J.) 
781 
income for her maintenance, it must be presumed that the property is A 
_,,. 
given to her in lieu of maintenance, The property under 'A' schedule 
was allotted against the share of Maharaja Pillai, That property was 
given to the possession of the widow with a right to take income for her 
maintenance, and this is sufficient to get the protection of section 14( l) 
of the Act, [782B; 783D-E; 784C-D; 786G] 
B 
Gu/want Kaur & Anr. v, Mohinder Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal 
No. 112 of 1980, date 20,7.87; Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & 
Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 291; V. Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddi, [1977] 3 SCR 
-
261at310, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 266 c 
~-
of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .2. 1973 of the Kerala High 
Court in S.A. No. 763 of 1970. 
S. Padmanabhan and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant. 
D 
G. Vishwanatha Iyer and Miss Lily Thomas for the Respondent 
Nos. 2 and 5. 
-A 
D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent No. 1. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by special leave has 
been preferred against the judgment and decree dated February 7, 
1983 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Second Appeal No. 763 of 
1970. 
F 
\ 
Under the family partition deed Ex. D 1 executed on August 2, 
1950, the properties under 'A' schedule were allotted to Maharaja 
Pillai and after his death his widow was given the right to take the 
income therefrom. One of the sons of Maharaja Pillai filed a suit 
claiming his right to take 1/3rd share in those properties. The trial court G 
while construing the terms of Ex. D 1 held that the widow got absolute 
right over 'A' schedule under section 14( 1) of the Hindu Succession 
-.(, 
Act. The appellate court, however, took a different view. The appel-
late court held that: the widow could get only a restricted right under 
Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Upon further appeal, the 
High Court agreed with the view taken by the appellate court. The H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] 1 S.C .. R. 
A 
High Court, hoWever, granted a smill share to the widow stating that ~ 
according to law in force in the erstwhile Travancore State, the widow 
would have inherited the share which would have fallen to any.of the 
sons. 
The question

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