MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS. versus RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 18-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.
v.
RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5894 of 2019)
MAY 18, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.14 – Property of a female
Hindu to be her absolute property – Hindu widow – Right to hindu
undivided property – Held: Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is
a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual
relationship between the husband and the wife – Where a Hindu
widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the
HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such
property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of
maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did
not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-
existing right of maintenance – Word “possessed by” and
“acquired” used in s. 14(1) are of the widest amplitude and include
the state of owning a property – It is by virtue of s.14(1), that the
Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged into an
absolute right, when such property is possessed by her whether
acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of
her right to maintenance – On facts, defendant no.1-hindu widow
was staying in the suit property before the death of her uncle-in-
law, and after his death was in possession and in charge of the said
property, and was paying the house tax prior to 1956 and was
collecting the rent from the tenants in the suit property prior to and
after 1956 – In view of her pre-existing right to maintenance from
the estate of the HUF of her husband and in view of her exclusive
settled possession of the suit property prior to and after the
commencement of the 1956 Act, the defendant no.1 had acquired
the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance,
and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not
limited owner by virtue of s. 14(1) – Thus, the High Court rightly
held that defendant no 1 had pre-existing right to maintenance in
the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of s.
14(1) of the Act.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 876
876
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the plain reading of Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 along with the Explanation thereto,
it emerges that in order to become a full owner and not a limited
owner, of a property by virtue of Section 14(1), a female Hindu,
before or after the commencement of Act of 1956, must be in
possession of the property, and it must have been acquired by
her by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of
maintenance, or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person,
whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage or by
her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription, or in
any other manner whatsoever, or any such property must have
been held by her as stridhana immediately before the
commencement of the Act. [Paras 10-11][889-H; 890-A-B]
1.2 In the instant case, the concern is with the claim of
defendant no.1 of having become the full owner in respect of the
suit property on the ground that she was in settled legal
possession of the suit property before and after the
commencement of the Act, in lieu of her pre-existing right of
maintenance, and such limited ownership right had fructified into
full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1). The Hindu Women’s
Rights to Property Act, 1937 conferred right on Hindu widow to
the property of her husband, who died after the commencement
of the said Act of 1937 and not prior thereto. Defendant no.1’s
husband having expired in 1936, the said Act of 1937 would not
be applicable to facts of the case. However, prior to the said Act
of 1937, the right to maintenance of Hindu widow was recognised
in Shastric law. [Para 12][890-C-F]
1.3 Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property
of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be
maintained out of the said property. She is entitled to retain the
possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance.
Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal
construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing
and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved
by the said legislation. The words “possessed by” used in Section
14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and incl

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