SADHU SINGH versus GURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 08-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
{ 
SADHU SINGH 
A 
V. 
GURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN. JJ.) 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sections 14(1), 14(2) and 30. 
c 
Property of a female Hindu-Rights of-Male Hindu executed a Will in 
favour of his wife in respect of his self-acquired property-It was stipulated 
in the Will that so long as his wife was alive sh~ would be the owner of the 
. properties and after her death his two nephews would take the property in 
equal shares-It was specifically stated in the Will that during her lifetime D 
his wife would not transfer the properties to al'l)I other heirs by way of any 
Will and that she would not be entitled to mortgage or sell the properties 
during her lifetime-However, on his death his widow gifted the property in 
favour of a Gurdwara-Nephew filed a suit challenging the deed of gift 
claiming that under the Will the widow took only a life estate in the suit 
property-The trial cov.rt dismissed the suit holding that the Will was not E 
genuine and that the widow had taken the property absolutely on the death 
of her husband as an heir-On appeal, the first appellate court held that the 
Will was genuine and that the widow had only a life estate or limited estate 
in the suit property-In second appeal, the High Court reversed the decision 
of the first appellate court and dismissed the suit-Correctness of-Held: An F 
owner of property has normally the right to deal with that property including 
... 
the right to devise or bequeath the property-Thus, a Hindu male could 
dispose it of by a testament-Therefore, there is nothing in the Act which 
affects the right of a Hindu male to dispose of his separate property by 
providing only a life estate or limited estate for his widow-Therefore, the 
wife or widow has to take it as the estate falls-The widow was not competent G 
to gift away the properties in favour of the Gurdwara--Hence, gift deed set 
aside and property restored to the nephew-Hindu Adoptions and 
Maintenance Act, 1956, Ss. 18, 21 and 22. 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: 
-~ 
799 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
t 
1 
A 
Testamentary disposition-Will-Various clauses-Construction of-
Held: Harmonious construction should be adopted so as to give effect to all 
the terms of the Will if it is in any manner possible-In the case of a Will, eve01 
effort must be made to harmonize the various clauses-If that is not possible, 
it will be the last clause that wifl prevail over the former and giving way to 
B 
the intention expressed therein. 
One 'R' held some property which was self-acquired. 'R' had no children 
and died leaving behind his wife. Before his death, he executed a Will in favour 
. i 
of his wife in respect of all his properties. In the Will it was stated that so 
long as his wife was alive she would be the owner of the properties and after 
c her death his two nephews (sister's sons) would take the property in equal 
shares. It was specifically stated in the Will that during her lifetime his wife 
would not transfer the properties to any other heirs by way of any Will and 
that she would not be entitled to mortgage or sell the properties during her 
lifetime. However, on the death of'R' his widow purported to gift the property 
in favour of a Gurdwara. 
D 
The appellant-nephew filed a suit challenging the deed of gift claiming 
that under the Will, the widow of 'R' took only a life estate in the suit property. 
r 
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the Will propounded by the 
appellant was not genuine and that the widow had taken the property absolutely 
E 
on the death of her husband as an heir. On appeal, the lower appellate court 
held that the Will was genuine and that the widow had only a life estate or 
limited estate in the suit property. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed 
the decision of the lower appellate ctJurt and dismissed the suit. Hence the 
appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that Sections 14(2) and 30 
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was applicable to the facts of the case and 
that Section 14(1) of the Act had no application. 
r • 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: I. When a male Hindu dies possessed of property after the 
coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his heirs as per the 
schedule, take it in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The heir or heirs take it 
absolutely. There is no question of any limited estate de

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