SMT. GULWANT KAUR & ANOTHER versus MOHINDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 20-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SMT. GULWANT KAUR & ANOTHER 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. 
JULY 20, 1987 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14---Hindu lady receiving 
land from husband in lieu of maintenance-Sufficient title to enable 
ripening of possession into full ownership. 
The appellant-wife and her husband were estranged and living 
apart. The husband, by a letter dated July 28, 1956, entrusted .to the 
appellant the land in dispute alongwith another piece of land and a 
house and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.100 per month for her mainte-
nance. After a few years, the husband conceived the idea of selling the 
D land in dispute. The appellant protested by her letter dated June 15, 
1966 and implored him not to sell the land. Despite this, the husband 
sold the said land to the plaintiff-respondents. 
The purchaser instituted a suit for an injunction restraining the 
appellants from interfering with possession, which was contested ini-
E tially on the ground that the land had been gifted to the appellant orally 
by the husband, and that title had been acquired by adverse possession. 
Later, the written statement was amended and a further plea was taken 
that the said land had been given in lieu of maintenance and that she 
had become the absolute owner of the land nnder Section 14 of the 
Hindu Succession Act. All courts found that there was no oral gift. 
F 
A Single Judge of the High Court held that the land was given to 
the appellant by her husband in lieu of maintenance and that by Section 
14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she had become full owner of the 
property. 
G 
On appeal under the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of the High 
Court held that "The reading of the letter left no meaning of doubt that 
there was never any intention on the part of the husband to give away 
~ 
the land to the lady and that instead of sending the total amount in cash 
he allowed her to utilise the amount of ckakota for meeting her day to 
day expenses", that she did not at all acquire any snch right or interest 
H in the property as could be .termed 'limited ownership' so as to permit 
576 
GULWANT KAUR v. MOHINDER 
577 
her to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu 
A 
Succession Act, that "if the husband had given over the land in dispute 
completely to the lady, then the question of sending more money could 
not have arisen" and reversed the Judgment of the Single Judge. 
The appellant appealed to this Court. On behalf of the respon· 
dents, it was contended that even if the land was given to the appellant 
B 
in lieu of maintenance, it must be established that what was 1dven to her 
was a limited estate in the sense of ownership without the right of 
alienation and that under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act only 
such a limited estate would blossom into an absolute estate. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
HELD: 1.1 Section 14 is aimed at removing restrictions or limi· 
tations on the right of a female Hindu to enjoy, as a full owner, property 
possessed by her so long as her possession is traceable to a lawful origin, 
that is to say, if she has a vestige of a title. It makes no difference 
whether the property is acquired by inheritance or devise or at a parti· D 
tion or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenanA:e or by gift or by 
her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription or in any 
other manner whatsoever. The Explanation to the Section expressly 
refers to property acquired in lieu of maintenance and the widow is not 
required to establish her further title before she could claim full owner-
ship, under Section 14(1) in respect of property given to her and posses-
E 
sed by her in lieu of maintenance. [582F-H) 
1.2 The very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to 
enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in posses-
sion of the property in lieu of maintenance. Sub·section (2) of Section 14 
is in the nature of an exception to Section 14(1) and provides for a 
F 
situation where property is acquired by a female Hindu under a written 
instrument or a decree of court and not where such acquisition is trace· 
able to any antecedent right..[582H; 583A) 
2. If a female Hindu is put in possession of property pursuant to 
<I 
~ or in recognition of a right to maintenance, it cannot be denied that she 
G 
has acquired a limited right or interest in the property and once that 
position is 'lccepted, it f

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