LexNARAINI DEVI versus SMT. RAMO DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
•
'
•
55
NARAIN! DEVI
v.
SMT. RAMO DEVI AND ORS.
December 18, 1975
[R. S. SARKARIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J
Hindu Succession Act-Section 14(1) & (2)-Scope of-Liniited interest in
an estate given under an award to a lvidow not having a pre-existing right under
the Hindu Law prior to the comn1ence111ent of the Hindu Succession Act, comes
to an end 011 her death.
'N' a widow of 'H', -..vho, under the Hindu law then applicable and in the·
presence of her three sons, did not get any_ share or iqterest in the house left
by her late husband and therefore got a life interest by virtue of a registered
~iward filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 ('.P.C. to establish her claim to the
property that had been attached in execution of the decree against her secon<l
.son obtained by her eldest daughter-in-law.
'N's suit was decreed by the trial
Court. The first appellate court reversed that decree.
The second appeal and
the review in the High Court failed.
On appeal by special leave, rejecting the contention that "the appellant..<>
limited interest \\as enlarged into that of <t full owner by the operation of snb-
scc. ( l) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court
.HELD : ( 1) A reading of the award a .. -; a whole, leaves little doubt, that
the only interest in the house created in f~\vour of the widow was that she \vould
be entitled to its rent, and no more for her life time. [56 F]
(2) In the present case, the appellant did not get any share or interest in
the hou~e left by her husbaJld under the Hindu Law as then applicable. She
had no pre-c>..isting right or interest in the property. [57 B]
(3) The award created a restricted estate for her in the house. and f57 Bl
( 4) The case fell Squarely within the
ambit of sub-section
(2) of sec-
tion 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and her interest came to an end on her
death. [57 CJ
Badri Prasad v. Sn1t. Kanan Devi [1970] 2 S.C.R. 95, not applicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 824 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
23-8-1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. (Review) appli-
cation No. 32 of 1966 (in S.A. 4357/65).
l. P. Goyal for the Appellant.
V. S. Desai and V. N. Ganpule for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKAR IA, J.
The following pedigree table illustrates the relation-
ship of the parties :
Hira Lal=Smt. Naraini Devi (plaintiff).
(died in 1925).
Kapoo'.' Ch«nd
(diod in 1954)
=Smt. Ramo Devi
(Respondent I l
Decree-holder
5-L390 SCl176
Neini Chand
(Judgment-debtor)
Chandra Bhan
(died in 1930)
(extinct).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(197 6] 3 S.C.R.
Smt. Ramo Devi, widow of Kapur Chand (shown in the above
pedigree table) obtained a money decree against her husband's bro-
ther Nemi Chand. In execution of her decree she got attached one
half-share in the double storeyed House No. 4416, situated at Agra
representing it to be of the judgment-debtor. Smt.
Naraini Devi,
widow of Hira Lal, filed an objection petition under 0.21, r. 58, Code
of Civil Procedure against that attachment claiming the house to be her
property. That objection was dismissed by the executing court on the
16th July, 1962. Thereafter, she filed.a suit under 0.21, r. 63, Code
of Civil Procedure to establish her cfaim. The suit was decreed by
the trial court. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the judgment
and dismissed the suit.
Naraini Devi's second appeal was summarily
dismissed by the High Court.
She filed a review petition which was
rejected by the High Court on August 23, 1967.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
It is common ground between the parties that under a· registered
award dated January 4, 1946, the plaintiff Smt. Naraini Devi was given
a life interest in the house in dispute.
The appellant's contention is
that her limited interest in the house was enlarged into that of a full
owner by the operation of sub-s. (I) of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act.
As against this, the respondents maintain that her case
falls
under sub-s. (2) of s. 14. The question thus turns on a construction
of the award Ex. 2.
We have examined an English rendering of this document filed by
the appellant, the correctness of which is not disputed by the respond-
ent.
This award states in clear, unmistakable terms that she, Naraini
E
Devi would be entitled to the rent of this house in' lieu of maiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.