SMT. HIMI AND ANR. versus SMT. HIRA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
.. 
$MT. HIMI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SMT. HIRA DEVI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
S.14(1) and (2)-Hindu Female having a rest1icted Tight to occupy 
properties flowing from consent tenns not created in acknowledgment of any C 
pre-existing Tight of maintaince-Held, covered by Section 14 (2) and not S. 14 
( 1 )-She does not become absolute owner by virtue of provisions of S. I 4( I) . 
One "A" owned agricultural lands and made will of his properties 
dividing equally the properties between his second wife "B" and daughter 
from the first wife "C". 
A died on 25th July 1946. "C" filed a civil suit on 5th May, 1947 
challenging mutation of property in her step mother's (B's) name and for 
possession of her half share in the properties as a legatee under her 
father's will. 
A compromise was arrived at between the parties. Under the said 
compromise "C" acknowledged the ownershjp of half share of "B" pursuant 
to the will of "A". 
It was further agreed that properties comprising of C's half share 
under her father's will would remain in possession of "B" during her life 
time but after her death heirs of "C" would be entitled to enter upon the 
possession of suit properties. 
It was also agreed that during B's life time both the parties will have 
equal rights over the suit properties. 
"B" assumed that she had become full owner of the property by virtue 
of provisions of S.14 (1) of the Act and donated the suit properties by two 
gift deeds dated 17th April 1970 and 26th August 1970 in favour of "E" and 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"F" Under these gift deeds apart from her half share in the properties for 
which there was no dispute she gifted away the other half of properties H 
855 
.... 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
· · A which belonged to "C" and which half was possessed by her during her life 
time as per the consent decree. 
Donees entered into possession of the property, 'B' died on 4th 
September, 1971. 
B 
Heirs of 'C' filed suit against donees stating that properties were 
illegally donated by "B" to the concerned donees. 
Trial Court passed a decree for possession in favour of appellants 
holding that they are heirs of "'C' and that defendants are estopped from 
C challenging the will as they were bound by admission made by "B", relating 
to the validity of the will and the half share of "C" in the suit properties. 
The Trial Judge further held that 'B' possessed these properties as 
limited owner. as her right flowed from consent decree passed in 1947, and 
therefore she had a restricted estate not capable of being enlarged into 
D absolute ownership on account of provisions of S.14 (2) of the Act. 
First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against Judgment of the 
trial Court. 
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal holding 
E that donee was a third party and he was claiming dehors _the will and as 
the said wi!l was not proved between the parties and the admission of "B" 
regarding validity of the will was not binding on "E" Donee. The appellants 
have preferred the present appeal by spedal leave. 
F 
The appellants contended that compromise decree dated 6th Nov., 
~-
1947 between the step ~other and step daughter for the first time con-
ferred a right on "B" to remain in possession of the. suit lands which 
belonged to 'C'. Therefore, the consent decree created a new right in favour 
of 'B' to remain in possession of'C's land and consequently Section 14(2) 
G of the Act, applied and not section 14(1). 
Respondents ~contended that they were not party to consent decree 
and as the will was . not legally. proved on record no right· in the suit 
property enured in favour of "C". 
H 
It wa~ further contended that the suit properties were possessed by 
I 
t 
HIMI v. HIRADEVI[S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.) 
857 
'B' when S.14(1) of the Act come into operation and her possession as A 
limited owner matured into full ownership. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD ; 1.1. Suit Filed by 'C' was compromised and "B" accepted 
right, title and interest of "C" in the suit properties as flowing from the 
will o( her father to the extent of one half share and she agreed to remain 
in possession of one half share of properties during her life time and on 
her death "C" or her heir would be entitled to take possession of these 
properties as full owner thereof. This restricted right was created not in 
lieu of any pre-existing or antecedent ri

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