VAIJANATH AND ORS. versus GURAMMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 08-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
V AIJANA TH AND ORS. 
v. 
GURAMMA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER !8, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937-S. 1(3)-Hyderabad 
(Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952-S. 3-Schedule-Annexures 'A', 
'B', 'C', 'D'and'F'. 
Hyderabad Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural 
Land) Act, 1954 : Section 2. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Seventh schedule-Concurrent List-Entry 
5-Scope of-No exclusion of Agricultural lands from Entry 5. 
Hindu Law-State of Hyderabad-Joint Family Property-Partition-
Widow-Given a share in the agricultural lands belonging to the joint 
family-Contention that under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as 
applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated, 
the widow was not entitled to a share in the joint family agricultural lands 
E as agricultural lands are excluded from the provisions of the Hindu Women's 
Right to Property Act, 1937-Rejection by High Court Appeal before Supreme 
Court-Held-The Legislature of the State of Hyderabad was competent to 
enact a Legislation which dealt with intestacy and succession relating to 
Joint Family property including agricultural land-The language of the 
p Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 as enacted in the State of 
Hyderabad is as general as the Original Act-The words 'Property' as well 
as 'interest in Joint Family Property' are wide enough to cover agricultural 
land~ a/so-Therefore, on an interpretation of the Hindu Women's Right to 
Property Act, 1937 as enacted by the State of Hyderabad, the Act covers 
agricultural lands-The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act is a remedial 
G Act seeking to mitigate hardships of a widow regarding inheritance under 
~ 
H 
the Hindu Law prior to the enactment of the 1937 Act: and it ought to receive 
a beneficial interpretation-The beneficial interpretation in the present context 
would clearly cover agricultural lands under the word 'property'. 
Contention that prior to the enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women's 
36 
VAIJANATH v. GURAMMA 
37 
Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, the Hindu A 
Women's Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952 would not apply to 
agricultural land, has rightly been negatived by High Court-A subsequent 
Act cannot be used to interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this 
fashion. 
In: Re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937, AIR (1941) Federal B 
Court 72, held inapplicable. 
Words and Phrases 
Property-meaning of 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4379of1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.93 of the Bombay High Court 
in S.A. No. 266 of 1985. 
c 
S.V. Deshpande, Pramit Saxena, Suhas and Anacleto Viegas for the D 
Appellants. 
C.G. Solshe for Rakesh K. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The application to bring on record Respondent No.2 also as legal 
representative of deceased Respondent No. 1 is allowed. 
The !st respondent was the widow of one Ramshetti who died some 
time in July, 1954. The 2nd respondent is her daughter. Ramshetti and his 
brother Veerappa, during their life time constituted a joint family which owned, 
inter alia, agricultural land. The present appellants are the widow, sons and 
daughters of Veerappa. 
E 
F 
On a partition of the joint family property which was ordered in 
proceedings arising pursuant to regular Suit No. 88/78 for partition and G 
possession, the 1st respondent as widow of Ramshetti has been given a share 
in the agricultural lands belonging to the joint family. The appellants contended 
that under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as applied in the 
erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated, the !st respondent 
being the widow of deceased Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share in the 
joint family agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are excluded from the H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A provisions cf the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. This contention 
has been n1:gatived by the High Court. Hence the present appeal has been 
filed by the heirs of Veerappa. 
On the date of death of Ramshetti in July, 1954, the lands were situated 
B in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. Under the Hyderabad (Application of 
Central Acts) Act, 1952 which received assent of the President on 22nd of 
July, 1953, certain Central Acts affecting Hindu and Muslim laws were applied 
to the State of Hyde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.