MANGAL SINGH & ORS. versus SHRIMATI RATTNO & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 06-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
SHRIMATI RATTNO & ANR. 
April 6, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), 1. 14-lllndu widow inheriting 
properlj1 from husband in 1917-DisposseSJed by husband's 
coUaterqls 
in 1954-Suit for recovery of possession filed by her-During pendent:l. 
of 1uit Act 30 of 1956 passt<J:-S. 14 of Act conferring rights of fllll 
ownership to women holding as limited owners In respect of property 
"possessed by" them-Dispossessed owner 
whether 
posseS1t11 
property 
within meaning of section. 
. 
A Hindu widow in the Punjab came into possession of her busband'a 
land on his death in 1917. She continued in possession till 1954 when 
on an application made by certain collaterals of her late husband the 
Naib Tebsildar effected a mutation in favour of the collaterals. On the 
basis of the Naib Tehsildar's order the collaterals d:apossessed the widow. 
She filed· a suit for recovery of possession of the land. After the institu-
tion of the suit the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into foo:e. During 
the pendency of the suit, in. 1958, the widow· died and her daughter was 
substituted as legal representative. The defendants pleaded that the 
widow had lost her right to the land because of her karewa marriage 
with one of the collateral&, and that ·the daughter could not succeed to 
the land as she was not in possession of the hind on the coming into 
force of the Hindu Succession Act so as to become full owner of the 
land under s. 14 thereof. The trial court di•miw:d the suit but the 1lmt 
appellate court decreed it, holding that there was no karewa marriage as 
alleged by the defendants, and that s. 14 was applicable to the case. The 
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants who came to 
this court by special leave. 
HELD : (i) The finding of fact by the first appellate court that there 
was no karewa marriage was binding on the delOndants, and the High 
Court rightly accepted it. It was not open to the defendants to challenge 
the finding in this Court. 
[457H] · 
(ii) The use of the expression ''possessed by" instead of the expres-
sion "in possession of" in s. 14(1) was intended to enlarge the meaning 
of this expression to cover cases of possession in law. On the language 
of s. 14 ( I ) the provision will become applicable to any property which 
is owned by a female Hindu even though she is not in actual physical 
or constructive possession of the property. [459C-D; 460DJ 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The section however will not apply to cases where the Hindu female 
G 
may have parted with her rights so as to place herself in a position where 
she could in no manner exercise her rights in that property any longer. 
[465CJ 
On the facts of the case the plaintiff widow had acquired ·full rights 
of ownership of the land under s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. On 
her death in 1958 the property passed to her daughter. The High Court, 
rightly dismissed the defendants, appeal. [4650] 
ll 
Gwmnalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veerayya & 
Ors. [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 968 and Brahmdeo Singh v. Deomani Misslr. 
C.A. No. 130/ 1960 dated 15-10-1962, d1stingulshed. 
MANGAL SINGH v. RATTNO (Bhargava, l.) 
455 
A 
S. S. Munria Lal v. S. S. Ra;kumar, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 418 and 
Eramma v. Veerupana, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1879, applied. 
Gaddam Venkayamma v. Gaddam Veerayya, A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 280, 
Sansir Pate/in & Anr. v. Satyabatl Naikani & Anr. A.l.R. 1958 Orissa 75, 
Gaiesh Mahanta v. Sukria Bewa, A.LR. 1963 Ori•sa 167, Hapak Singh 
v. Kai/ash Singh & Anr. A.I.R. 1958 Patna 581, Ram Gu/am Singh v. 
Pa/akdhari Singh, A.LR. 1961 Patna 60" Nathuni Prasad Singh v. Mst. 
B 
Kachnar Kuer, A.l.R. 1965 Patna 160 and Mst. Mukhtlar Kaur v. Mst. 
Kartar Kaur & Ors., A.I.R. 1966 Pun. 31, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 51 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
January 3, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second 
C 
Appeal No. 1958 of 1959. 
Bishan Narain and Sadhu Singh, for the appellant. 
J. P. Goyal and Raghunath Singh, for respondents Nos. 1 (a) 
to l(d). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
Bhargava, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for pos-
session of some land which was admittedly owned at one time 
by one Labhu. Labhu died in the year 1917 and, on his death 
his widow, Smt. Harnam Kaur, who filed the suit as plaintiff, 
came into possession of the land. She c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.