MANGAT MAL (DEAD) AND ANOTHER versus SMT. PUNNI DEVI (DEAD) AND OTHERS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 07-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MANGAT MAL (DEAD) AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SMT. PUNNI DEVI (DEAD) AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Hindu Succession Act 1956-Section 14(1)-Rights of a Female 
Hindu-' Maintenance'-Meaning of-Whether or not the maintenance given 
to a fem ale Hindu would necessarily encompass a provision for her residence. 
Specific property allotted to a widow, of a co-parcener in a Hindu joint 
family, in lieu of her claim for maintenance-Wltether said allotment is by 
virtue of a pre-existing right-Can such claim be equated with a right of 
ownership. 
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act-Scope of. 
Object of legislature-To wipe out the disabilities suffered by a Hindu 
woman, under the old Shastric Law, in regard to ownership of property-To 
recognise her status as an independent and absolute owner of her property. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 14-Large enough in its amplitude to cover every E 
kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, including acquisition in 
lieu of maintenance-Sub Sec. (2) Sec. 14-Confined only to cases where 
property was acquired for the first time by a Hindu woman without any 
·pre-existing right. 
Right to receive maintenance-A pre-existing right-Possession of F 
property pursuant to or in recognition of such a right-Sufficient title to enable 
ripening of possession into full ownership. 
Legal position prior to enactment of the Act-Right of a fem ale Hindu, 
in the property-only a limited interest-Disability imposed by law, wiped out G 
and limited interest enlarged to a full and absolute interest under Sec. 14(1) 
of the Act. 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959-Sec. 3(d)-Definition 
of'Maintenance'-lncludes in all cases-Among other things, provision for 
residence. 
H 
369 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the year 1934 , as a result of arbitration proceedings, between one 
B 
S widow of a co-parcerner in a Hindu joint family and her father-in-law, 
A certain immovable properties, belonging to the joint family and a lump 
sum amount of RI\. 38000 was allotted to said S. The terms of the award 
·~ 
made it abundantly clear that the said property was allotted to her for her 
life time, for the purpose of residence and maintenance and upon her death 
would revert back to, A his heirs and legal representatives. 
Said A expired in 1945 and in 1956 the Hindu Succession Act came 
into force. By virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the said Act, property held by a female 
Hindu immediately, prior to the commencement of the Act was made her 
C absolute property. 
In April 1960 said S sold the properties in her possession to the 
predecessor in title of the AppellantsNendees. Consequently a suit was 
filed by the legatees under A's will challenging the validity of the said sale. 
D 
The Trial Court, dismissed the suit, holding that S had become, by 
E 
F 
reason of the Act, the full owner of the disputed property and hence the 
sale was valid. The High Court, in appeal however took a contrary view 
and set aside the sale, holding that S had only restricted life estate in the 
property and therefore, had not become the full owner of the said property. 
The Vendees, in appeal, before this Court, contended that : (a) S had 
a pre-existing right to maintenance. (b) that the disputed properties 
having been allotted to her in lieu of that right, she had acquired a limited 
ownership of the properties under the award in 1934. (c) That on coming 
into force of the Hindu Succession Act, her limited ownership had blos-
somed into a full ownership. 
The Respondents resisted the said appeal on the grounds that : (a) 
For the application of Sec. 14(1), it was requisite that the property should 
have been 'acquired' and that the acquisition was of ownership rights, 
comparable to those a limited estate holder under the old Hindu Law (b) 
G Since S had been conceded only the right of residence in the disputed 
property, she had not acquired any right thereto. (c) Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 
14, presupposed the existence of a limited ownership before the same could 
be converted into a full ownership. (d) Modes of acquisition contemplated 
in the Explanation to Section 14(1) suggested that it was the right of 
H ownership that was insisted upon and a right in the nature of a right of 
MANGATMALv. PUNNIDEVI 
371 
residence could not be t;quated with a right of ownership. (e) The fact that A 
even during the life time of S the reversioners to whom the disputed 
property belonged 

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