SANTHOSH AND ORS. versus SARASWATHIBAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 20-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SANTHOSH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SARASWATIIIBAI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
_, 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
Sections 14(1) and (2)-Applicability of-Right of female Hindu c 
to possess any property-Jn a consent decree, widow allotted property 
by way of maintenance with limited right over property-Held: Since 
property was acquired in lieu of right to maintenance, it was by virtue 
of pre-existing right and such acquisition would not be within ambit 
of s.14(2)-s.14(1) would apply-Property would become absolute D 
property of such female Hindu. 
In a suit between the first wife of 'T' and the second wife and her 
son, a compromise was entered and a consent decree dated 20. 7 .1964 
was passed. The terms of consent decree was that the land to the extent E 
of 6 acres 33 guntas was given to first wife for her maintenance till her 
death; thatthe second wife and her son would not interfere and obstruct 
in the peaceful possession of that portion ofland given to first wife; that 
the first wife would not alienate land which was given for maintenance 
~ ' 
and after the death of first wife, the land given to her would be reversed 
to the second wife and her son. The first wife died in 1992. 
F 
Respondents-plaintiffs who were heirs and legal representatives 
of the firstwife filed a suit claiming the said land on the ground that first 
wife was the owner thereof in terms of s.14(1) ofHindu Succession Act, 
1956. Appellants-defendants contested the suit on the ground that first G 
-i 
wife was not the absolute owner of the said property having been allotted 
to her by reason of the consent decree and that the suit land was allotted 
to her byway of maintenance which she could keep in possession only 
375 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A during her life time and therefore s.14(2) of the Act and not s.14(1) would 
apply. 
The suit was dismissed on the ground that respondents were not 
the owners and were not in possession of the suit property. First appellate 
8 Court allowed the appeal opining that s.14(1) being applicable, the 
respondents became the owners of the suit property. Second appeal by 
appellants was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The possession of first wife in respect of 6 acres 33 
guntas ofland even prior to the institution of the suit has been accepted 
in the said consent decree. Appellants undertook not to interfere in her 
peaceful possession thereover. Admittedly after the death of'T' who 
died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, first wife 
D became one of the co-owners of the property. It is, therefore, not a case 
where she had no right to possess the said land. If she had a right to 
possess the said land as a co-owner, the question of divesting her of the 
said right by invoking sub-s.(2) of s.14 of the Act would not arise. The 
stipulations made in the consent decree dated 20. 7.1964 must thus be 
E construed having regard to the well settled legal position. 
[Paras 13and14) [383-G; 384-A, B, CJ 
Shakuntla Devi v. Kam/a and Ors., [2005) 5 SCC 390 and Chandrika 
Singh (D) by L.Rs v.Sarjug Singh andAnr., (2006) 13 SCALE 408, relied 
F on. 
Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeravva 
and Ors., [1959) Supp. I SCR 968, referred to. 
2.1. The Hindu female's right to maintenance is not an empty 
G formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and 
generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from the 
spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. Such a right 
may not be a right to property but it is a right against property and the 
husband has a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the 
H family has property, the female has the legal right to be maintained 
_, 
. -
SANTHOSH v. SARASWATHlBAI 
377 
· therefrom. If a charge is created for the maintenance of a female, the A 
said right becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate, even without· 
a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-existing right so 
that any transfer declaring or recognising such a right does not confer 
-
any new title but merely endorses or confirms the pre-existing rights. 
[Para 15] (384-D, E, F, G] B 
_, 
2.2. S.14(1) and the Explanation thereto have been couched in the 
widest possible terms and must be liberally construed in favour of the 
females so as to advance the object of the 1956 Act and promote the

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