LexSMT. GUMPHA AND ORS. versus JAIBAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y SMT. GUMPHA AND ORS. v. JAIBAL FEBRUARY 11, 1994 (KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.J Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sections 14(2), 3(}-Testamentary Succes- sion-Wilf-Testator creating life estate in favour of his wife in 1941-Testator dying in 1958-Held, right of female Hindu under s.14 depends upon nature A B of possession she enjoyed over property-If she acquires possession after en- C f orcement of Act and that possession was traceable to an instrument or a document described under sub-section (2) of s.14, she could not get higher right than that stipulated in the document. Words and Phrases: Expression 'in lieu of maintenance or an-ears of maintenance' occurring in Explanation to s. 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, D 1956-lnterpretation of The father of the respondent who had two wives, executed in 1941, a will of his property giving one half share to each of his wives till their life and making his only daughter, the respondent the ultimate beneficiary. E The testator died in 1958. The step-mother of the respondent, in 1966, few months before her death, executed a will in favour of the appellant, a complete stranger to the family, allegedly a domestic servant. The respon· dent tiled a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the ground that the will was invalid as her step-mother having right of main· tenance only, had no right or title which she could validly transfer by way F of will in favour of the appellant. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit holding that toe life estate created under the will stood converted into absolute estate under s.14(1) of rhe Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it was in recognition of pre-existing right. On second appeal, the High Court decided in favour of .the respondent holding that the widow G could not get larger interest than that was intended by the testator. Hence. the appeal by special leave. ~( On the question: whether the life estate of a widow under a will executed in 1941 gets enlarged into an absolute estate under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if succession opened after death of the tes- H 901 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R. A tator in 1958. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The right that a female Hindu acquires under s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 depends on the nature of possession she B enjoyed over the property. If she acquires possession after the enforcement of the Act and that possession was traceable to an instrument or a document described in sub-section (2) of s.14, she could not get higher right than what is stipulated in the document itself. The purpose and the legislative intention which surfaces from a combined reading of the two C sub-sections of s.~4 is that it attempts to remove the disability which was imposed by the customary Hindu Law on acquisition of rights by a female Hindu but it does not enlarge or enhance the right which she gets under a will givi~g her a limited estate under s.30 of the Act. [913-G, H; 914-A] G. Appaswami Chettiar & Anr. v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar & Ors., D A.l.R. 1978 SC 1051 and Kothi Satyanarayana v. Galla Sithayya & Ors., A.I.R. 1987 SC 353, relied on. Thota Sesharathamma & Anr. v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by LRs & Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 312; V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Shesha Reddy (Dead) E by LRs, [1977] 3 S.C.C. 99 and Bai Vijia (Dead) by LRs v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors., [1979) 3 S.C.C. 300, held inapplicable. Mst Kanni v. Amru, [1972] 4 S.C.C. 86, referred to. 2. In view of s. 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu can F bequeath his interest even in joint Hindu property. The use of the expan- sive language in s. 30 made wider by the Explanation leaves no room for doubt that the-legislature unmistakably intended that any property dis· posed of by will by a Hindu who is capable of disposing of such property shall be subject to restrictions and conditions· imposed by the testator G himself in the will. [907-F] Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dossee v. Denobundoo Mullick & Ors., (1862) 9 Moore's Indian Appeals· p.123; Baboo Beer Pertab Sahee v. Maharajah )- Rajender Pertab Sahee, (1867) 12 Indian Appeals p.1 and Jatindra Mohan Tagore & Anr. v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore, (1872) 9 Bengal Law Reports p. H 377, referred to. y GUMPHA v. JAIBAL 903 3.1. If the testator gives bis widow only right of maintenance under A the will, it cannot be said to be in lieu of maintenance. Otherwise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.