RANI BAI versus SHRI YADUNANDAN RAM & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 19-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RANI BAI 
v. 
SURI YADUNANDAN RAM & ANR. 
February 19, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Hindu Women's Right to Property A.ct, 1937, s. 3(2)-Righ( of pre-
deceastd son's widow to hold father-in-law's property for maintenanct-
Scope of. 
J owned certain inherited properties and 
his son 
predeoeased him 
leaving the appellant his widow as hi• heir and legal representative. After 
the son's death, J married B in 1948. J himself died in 1950 and after 
his death the first respondent claimed the properties by virtue of a gift 
deed. 
On this basis he obtained posse<sion of the properties from the 
appellant under s. 145 Cr.P.C. in December 1962. 
The appellant, to-
gether with J's widow B instituted a suit for declaration in respect of her 
rights and for pos•ession of the properties. Duririg the pendency of the 
suit B entered into a compromise with the first respondent giving up all 
her claims. The Trial Court found that the appellant was in possession 
until dispDSsessed by the first respondent un.der s. 145 Cr.P.C. and that 
the respondent had illegally occupied the properties. However, the Court 
non-suited the appellant on the Jiround that since her husband had died in 
the life-time of I. the latter's assets devolved on his widow B who would 
be his only heir. Although the District Judge allowed the first appeal and 
remanded the case, a further appeal by the first respondent was allowed 
by the High Court on the view that the appellant could have no interest 
in the properties left by J and she could not take advantage of the provi-
sions of s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Properties Act, 1937 
which confe'rred certain rights on the widow of a predeceased son. It 
further held that the rightful claimant of the properties of J was. B alone 
and owing to the comproffiise entered into by her, the first respondent was 
"clothed with the same rights which were possessed by her". 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Allowin~ the appeal : The High Court's decision must be 
reversed and that of the District Judge restored. 
It could not be disputed that the appellant who was the widow of the 
p~e-deceased son of J was entitled to receive maintenance, so long_ as she 
did. not re-m~rry. out of the estate of her father-in-law. 
Althou~h her 
claim for maintenance was not a charge uoon the estate until it had been 
fixed and specifically charged thereupon. her right was not liable to be 
defeated except by tiansfer to a borra fide purchaser for value without 
notice of a claim or even with notice of the claim unless the transfer was 
made with the intention of defeatin~ her right. (793 BJ 
The ~ppellant ~as presumably in possession of the properties in lieu 
of her nght of maintenance and could not be deprived of them even by 
B without first securin11 proper maintenance for her out of the properties. 
Rachawa & othm v. Shlvayogappa, I.L.R. 18 Bom. 679 and Y•llawa 
cl Ors. v. Bhimangavda, I.L.R. 18 Born. 452; referred to. 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 s.c.R. 
The Hi2h Court was in error in holdinii that the first respondent WB$ 
"clothed with the very same rights which were possessed" by B. If the 
Trial Court's finding that the first respondent was a mere trespasser was 
right, it was not possible to see how B could effect the transfer of all her 
rights by merely filing a petition to the effect that she did not wish to 
prosecute a suit as a plaintiff. [794 E-G] 
Ismail Arif] v. Mohomed Ghous., 20 I.A. 99, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 532 of 
1966. 
(In forma pauperis). 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 17, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Appeal No. 22 of 1962. 
M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. 
S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
Titis is an appeal in former pauperis by special 
leave from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at 
J abalpur dismissing the suit of the appellant for a declaration 
that she was the owner of the suit properties and for possession 
thereof. 
Jangi Jogi had inherited from his father properties consisting 
of some groves and a house in village MuklJ?Cfpur which was in 
the erstwhile State of Rewa which later became a oart of the State 
now called Madhya Pradesh. 
He had a son Laldas who is stated 
to have died in 1945 leavin~ the appe!Jant, hi< widow, as his heir 
and· lega

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