SHEO KUER versus NATHUNI PRASAD SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 12-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1002 
.. 
A 
SHEO KUER 
v. 
NATHUNI PRASAD SINGH & ORS. 
December 12, 1975 
B 
[Y. V. CHANDR,ACHUD, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Widow's Estate-Po1vers of a Hindu Female Id alienate t/ie properly dei·olv-
ed, for religious purposes-Test of reasonableness of cdienation. 
• 
c 
Kachnar Kuer, Olli whom·th•e. prope,rty of her late husband devolved, executed 
two regi~tered deeds. 
By one oi' these she adopted a son to her deceased 
husband and by the other, a deed of Arpan-nama she created a religious endow-
ment in the name of Shri Gopalji, appointing her mother-in-law Shw Kuer, the 
appellant as the shebait. 
The respondents claiming to be the reversioners filed a suit for declaration 
that the •wo deeds were void, illegal and not binding on their reversionary inter-
est. 
That suit was dismissed on the ground that the late husband of Kachnar 
Kuer had given authority .to her to make an adoption and to create an endow-
ment. 
D 
On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and 
E 
decreed the Suit. 
The High Court however, granted al certificate of fitness under 
Art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution and since afkr obtaining the certificate, 
Kachne>r Kuer pur.ported to compromise the suit with the reversioners, Shea 
Kuer, the shebait came up in appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) It is well settled that a Hindu widow possessing a 
widow's 
estate cannot alienate the property which has devolved on her except for special 
purposes. The powers of a Hindu female, to alienate prop·aty are wider 
in 
respect of acts which condure to the spiritual benefit of her deceased husband. 
The widow is entitled to sell the property, even the whole of it, if the income 
of the property is not sufficient to cover the expenses for such acts. 
In regard 
to alienations for pious observations, which are not essential or obligatory, her 
powers are limited to alienations of only a small portion of her property. [1004 
F, H, 1005 A] 
F 
(ii) Whether the alienation for a pious purpose is of a reasonable portion 
of the, prnperty must necessarily depend upon the total extent of the property 
which has devolved upon the widow. [1005 DJ 
(iii) The reasonability of the alienation of a portion of the property depends 
ii . 
on the facts and circumstances of each case, but an alienation of 1 (5th portion 
• 
G 
cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. [1005 Fl 
Collector of Ma.rn/ipatam v. Cavaly Vencata 8 M.I.A. 529, Sadar Singh v. 
Kunj. Behari 491 I.A. referred to Kamala Devi v. Baclw Lal 
Gupta, [l957] 
S.C.R. P. 452 applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 1969. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 
the 3rd October, 1964 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in 
H 
Appeal from Original Decree No. 152 of 1959. 
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant. 
S. V. Gi~?te and B. P. Singh for Respondents 1-2 
·) 
• > 
• 
.. 
SHEO KUER v. N; P. SINGH (Chandrachud, !.) 
1003 
Santok Singh for Respondents 3-4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J.-One Trilok Prasad Singh, who was the last male 
holder in his line, died on May 12, 1948 leaving behind his widow 
Kachnar Kuer and his step-mother Shea Kuer. 
On February 12, 1956 
Kachnar Kuer executed two registered 
d·~eds. By one of 
these 
she 
adopted 
a 
son 
to her 
deceased 
husband 
and by 
the 
other, which is described as a Deed of Arpan-nama, 
~he created 
·a religious endowment in the name of Sri Gopalji and appointed her 
mother-in-law Sheo Kuer as a shebait. 
Respondents 1 and 2, claiming to be reversioners, filed suit No . 
16 of 1956 in the court of the First Subordinate Judge, Gaya, for a 
declaration that the two deeds were void and illegal and were not 
binding on their reversionary interest. 
Kachnar Kuer was defendant 
1, the :.:cdopted son was defendant 2 and Shea Kuer was defendant 3 
to the suit. 
A 
B 
c 
During the suit, the defendants were evidently of one mind and 
they contended by their written statements that the impugned deeds 
were executed under the authority given by the deceased Trilok Prasad 
D 
Singh and that respondents 1 and 2 had no right to bring the suit after 
June 17, 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into 
force. 
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that Trilok Prasad Singh 
had given authority to Kachnar Kuer to make an adoption and to 
create an endowment and therefore both the deeds were valid. 
Against

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