NARESH KUMARI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER versus SHAKSHI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 05-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
· NARESH KUMAR! (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER 
-lo 
-~ 
v. 
"' 
·' SHAKSHI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 5, 1999 
B 
(K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
~ 
> 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 :. 
Widow's estate-Alienation of Widow's estate prior to coming into force 
c of 1956 Act-Alienation without legal necessity-Rights of alienee vis. a vis. 
Rights of reversioner-Held, not a valid transfer of title and alienee would 
only get a transitory limited right to enjoy the property during the lifetime of 
the widow and after the widow's death such property from the alienee would 
revert back to the reversioners of her husband. 
D 
Alienation of widow's estate inf av our of Female Hindu prior to coming 
into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Effect of coming into force of 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-S. 14( 1) & (2)-Scope of-Held, widow cannot 
get the benefit of S. 14( 1) as she has relinquished all her rights in the property 
by the transfer and cannot be said to be possessed of the property before the 
E coming into force of the 1956 Act. 
Female Hindu-Applicability of benefit under Section 14(1)-Held, 
when fem ale Hindu acquires and possesses the property in recognition of her 
pre-existing right, she would become full owner of the property. 
F 
Female Hindu-Applicability of S. 14(2)-Held, when she gets the right 
'"" 
for the first time under an instrument or order without any pre-existing right 
and such instrument or order must prescribe a restrictive estate in the property. 
G 
Words & Phrases-'Possessed by'----Meaning of in the context of Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Social and Beneficial Legislation-Held, in-
.... )
terpretation should not be restrictive but liberal in nature and legislation which 
restricts the scope of social and beneficial legislation should be given restric-
H tive interpretation. 
438 
.... ,, 
..j_ 
.. 
" 
NARESH KUMAR! v. SHAKSHI LAL 
439 
The appellant, a female Hindu had purchased a house from one K, 
widow of R, vide sale deed dated 29th January, 1954. The respondents who 
are Reversioners of R challenged the said sale and sought declaration of 
the title over the said house by filing a suit for declaration on the ground 
that the sale was void as the widow had only a limited interest in the 
property and thus, she had no right to sell the property without legal 
necessity. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Against the judgment of 
the trial court, the appellant filed appeal before the first appellate court. 
During the pendency of the appeal, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came 
into force on 17th June, 1956. The widow died on 22nd May, 1957 i.e., after 
coming into force of the 1956 Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was 
dismissed which became final. 
After conclusion of the first round of litigation, the respondent -
reversioners filed second suit for possession of the house in dispute on the 
basis of the decree obtained in the first round of litigation. The appellants 
were the defendants in the suit and contested the suit on the ground that 
the widow had died after becoming the full owner of the property in dispute 
on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the 
appellant being the transferee from the said widow and being in possession 
of the property had become its full owner. The trial court decreed the suit 
in favour of the plaintiff - respondents. The appeal preferred by the 
appellant against the o"rder of the trial court was allowed by the First 
Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court, the 
respondents filed Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court 
allowed the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the 
first appellate court and restoring the decree of the trial court. Against the 
ju-lgment of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 
The contention on behalf of the appellant was that the transfer in 
her favour by sale deed made by the widow did not contain any restriction 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
for the enjoyment of the property and since there was no restriction under G 
the said document, sub- section (2) would not apply to her and only 
sub-section (1) of Section 14 would apply to her, thus making her full 
owner of the property. 
The contention of the respondents was that the transfer by sale deed 
was made by the widow before the 1956 Act had come into operation when H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.