LexVIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANR. versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANR. v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. MAY 2, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sectiol!.< 14(1) and (2). Widow-Limited estate for maintenance-Enlargement into absolute estate-Death of widow-Daughter-Absolute ownership of North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901: Section 22. Property-Mode of Devolutio~Absence of male lineal descen- dants-Held widow is entitled to succeed. A B c U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950 : Section 11. D Widow-Possession of land-Recognition of pre-existing personal law. D, a landowner, died leaving behind three sons, N, Kand B. B. died leaving behind his widow S. Before his death B separated from his brothers and came into possession of 1/3rd share. After the death of B his 1/3rd E share was mutated in favour of his wife S, who remained in possession towards her maintenance by operation of section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari • and Land Reforms Act, 1950. S died leaving behind her daughter C. In consolidation proceedings a dispute arose whether C was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property. The Consolidation Officer found that the name of S was mutated for her maintenance and· the Settlement Officer rejected her F claim for 1/3rd share on the ground that she was not in possession In her own right and since B died in 1910 she has no right to share in the property left by her husband. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, does not apply to the claim made by S. On appeal, the Settlement Officer found that She was in possession of the property in her right having succeeded to G B. But her right was one of limited estate. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, limited estate was enlarged into iihsolute right. As regards other land, having purchased the tenancy right after paying ten times the land revenue, she became the owner. Therefore, it was held that she was entitled to 1/3rd share. The High Court held that C did not acquire any right since S had not succeeded to the estate of her husband B. There- H 1107 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1995] 3 S.C.R. A fore, she was not entitled to separate share and recording or the boldlnp in her name was incorrect. Hence these appeals. Disposing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. It is settled law that widow is entitled only to limited estate B for maintenance. By operation or sub-section (1) or section 14 or the Hindu Succession Act, her limited estate enlarged into absolute right as she was in possession when the Act came into ro~ce. Thereby she becomes the absolute owner or the property. When she died intestate, her daughter C became absolute owner as Class-I heir, since she was in possession and C enjoyment ortbe land in her own right. The entries in the revenue record corroborate the same. Thereby she became the absolute owner. (1110-H, llll·A) 2. It is not in dispute that C bad bequeathed ]/6th share to her son-in·law and the remaining share was gifted to her grand son. Thereby D they became entitled to the property by virtue or will and girt respectively. So far as other land is concerned, section 22 or the North-Western Provin· ces Tenancy Act, 1901, provides mode or devolution. In the absence of the male lineal descendants, the widow is entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights and on her demise the daughter and daughter's son are entitled to the succession. Having succeeded to that interest, the tenancy right of C got E enlarged into the ownership right by her paying ten times land re\'.enue by operation of section 134 of the U.P. Land Reforms Act. Thus, she becomes absolute owner In respect of her ]/3rd share in respect of other land. Therefore, the question or applicability of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was not F right in holding that S having had no interest In the property, since her husband B died, the respondents bad become owners by intestate devolu· tion. [llll·B·D) G Kameshwar Singh (deceased by L. Rs.) v. Deputy Director of Con- solidation, Pratapgarh and Ors., (1983) A.L.J. 699, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 991-93 ~~ ~ From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.78 of the Allahabad High H Court in C.M.W.P. No. 937, 936 and 938 of 1973. VUAY PAL SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1109 B.D. Sharma for the Appellants. A P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar and Ms. Bina Madhava
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.