SMT. BENI BAI versus RAGHUBIR PRASAD

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 24-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. BENI BAI 
A 
v. 
RAGHUBIR PRASAD 
FEBRUARY 24, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.) 
B 
Hindu Law-Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 14( 1), 
14(2}--Hindu Women's Right to Prope1ty Act, 1935-Confennent of limited 
interest by Will on a widow----ln lieu of maintenance-Whether the right is 
absolr;te--Held, since the limited interest is by vinue of pre-existing right of C 
maintenance and not a fresh 1ight the said right is trans/ onned into an absolute 
right. 
The father of the Appellant executed a Will in 1935, bequeathing the 
suit property in favour of Respondent. In the said Will a life interest was 
given for appellant's mother in lieu of her maintenance. In 1962, the D 
appellant's mother executed a gift deed in respect of the suit property in 
favour of the appellant. The respondent filed a suit for declaration that 
the Gift Deed was illegal and void. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 
the ground that the mother of the appellant having possessed the house 
in lieu of he pre-existing right she became the absolute owner under E 
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Gift Deed executed 
by her was valid. 
The first appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed and suit was 
decreed on the ground that the present case is governed by Section 14(2) 
of the Act of 1956, as the source of right was conferred for the first time 
F 
on the widow by virtue of the Will. On second appeal, the judgment of First 
Appellate Court was upheld. 
The appellant before this Court contended that once the widow of 
the testator had been given the right of possession in lieu of her main-
tenance, it was in recognition of her pre-existing right, that the said limited G 
right was transformed into an absolute right by virtue of Section 14(1) of 
the Act of 1956 and as such she was legally competent to gift the property 
in favour of her daughter. The respondent contended that since the widow 
got the right by virtue of a Will for the Qrst time her rights would be 
governed by Section 14(2) of the Act 1956, and in that case she was not H 
889 
-i 
890 
SUPREME COURl REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A legally competent to execute the Gift Deed in favour of the appellant. 
> 
--'._ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as the 
Second Appellate Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff· 
B respondent is dismissed. [894-F-D] 
2. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to cases where 
J. 
the conferment of right to a Hindu widow was in lieu of maintenance or in 
recognition of her pre-existing right as provided under the Shastric law 
c 
and Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. Section 14(2) of the Act would 
apply only to such cases where grant conferred a fresh right or title for 
the first ~ime and while conferring the said right certain restrictions were 
placed by the grant or transfer. [894-B·C] 
V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddi, [1997) 3 SCC 99(125); Ram Kali v. 
D Choudhri Ajit Shankar, [1997) 9 SCC 613 and Raghubir Singh v. Guiab 
Singh, ~1998) 6 SCC 314, referred to. 
"' 
3. The widow was conferred the limited right in lieu of maintenance 
in recognition of her pre-existing right. The limited interest conferred upon 
her by virtue of the Will being in lieu of maintenance and in recognition 
E of her pre-existing right, the said right transformed into an absolute right 
by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act. The said right was not conferred on 
her for the first time. Thus sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act has no 
application to the present case. Under such circumstances, the widow 
became the absolute owner of House No. 27 and was fully competent to 
F execute the Gift Deed in favour of her daughter. The Gift Deed executed 
. ~' 
~ 
by the widow was thus valid. [894·D·E] 
---
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2595 of 
r
1983. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.82 of the Allahabad High 
cciurt in S.A. No. 2643 of 1974. 
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Pradeep Misra and T. Mahipal for the Appel-
!ant. 
... 
H 
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli and Ms. Maulina Swaru,p for the 
BENIBAlv. RAGHUBIR PRASAD [V.N.KHARE,J.) 
891 
Respondent. 
·A 
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-•; 
· ·V.N. KHARE, J. One Nanho Dubey, father of the appellant herein, 
was the owner in possession of House No. 27 situate.in Mohalla purani B 
Kotwali, in the town of Jhansi. Durllig his life time Nanho Dubey eiecuted 
a Will on 16.12.

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