PETITIONER:
MAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MAHARAJA PILLAI THILLANAYAKOM PILLAI AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1987
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1988 SCR (1) 780 1988 SCC (1) 99
JT 1987 (4) 281 1987 SCALE (2)933
ACT:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Right of widow to property-
Whether absolute right under section 14(1) or restricted
right under section 14(2) of the Act.
HEADNOTE:
%
Under a family partition deed (Ex. 1), the properties
under 'A' schedule were allotted to Maharaja Pillai, and
after his death, his widow was given the right to take the
income from the properties.
One of the sons of Maharaja Pillai filed a suit
claiming his right to 1/3rd share in the properties above-
said. The trial court held that the widow got absolute right
over the properties in dispute under section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act. On appeal, the appellate court held
that the widow got only a restricted right under section
14(2) of the Act. On further appeal, the High Court mainly
upheld the view of the first appellate court. Against the
judgment of the High Court, appeal was filed to this Court
by special leave.
Allowing the appeal and restoring the judgment of the
trial court, the Court,
^
HELD: The question to be decided is whether the widow
got an absolute right or a restricted right over the
properties in the 'A' schedule after the coming into force
of the Hindu Succession Act. During the life time of
Maharaja Pillai, his wife (The widow in the case) was
maintained by him. After his death, the widow was in
exclusive possession of the 'A' schedule properties and was
taking the income from those properties. She had a right to
utilise that income for her maintenance. That right was
conferred on her under Ex. D. 1. The properties possessed by
the widow fairly and squarely fall under Section 14(1) of
the Act. The property mentioned in section 14(1) may be
acquired by a female by inheritance or devise or at a
partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance, etc. The right to maintenance of a Hindu female
is a personal obligation of the husband. If the wife is put
in exclusive possession of property with the right to take
781
income for her maintenance, it must be presumed that the
property is given to her in lieu of maintenance. The
property under 'A' schedule was allotted against the share
of Maharaja Pillai. That property was given to the
possession of the widow with a right to take income for her
maintenance, and this is sufficient to get the protection of
section 14(1) of the Act. [782B; 783D-E; 784C-D; 786G]
Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 112 of 1980, date 20.7.87; Bai Vajia v.
Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors., [19793 3 SCR 291; V. Tulsamma
v. Sesha Reddi, [1977] 3 SCR 261 at 310. referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 266 of
1974. C
From the Judgment and order dated 7.2.1973 of the
Kerala High Court in S.A. No. 763 of 1970.
S. Padmanabhan and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant.
G. Vishwanatha Iyer and Miss Lily Thomas for the
Respondent N and 5.
D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by special leave has
been preferred against the judgment and decree dated
February 7, 1983 passed by the High Court of Kerala in
Second Appeal No. 763 of 1970.
Under the family partition deed Ex. 1 executed on
August 2, 1950, the properties under ‘A’ schedule were
allotted to Maharaja Pillai and after his death his widow
was given the right to take the income therefrom. One of the
sons of Maharaja Pillai filed a suit claiming his right to
take 1/3rd share in those properties. The trial court while
construing the terms of Ex. 1 held that the widow got
absolute right over ‘A’ schedule under section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act. The appellate court, however, took a
different view. The appellate court held that the widow
could get only a restricted right under Section 14(2) of the
Hindu Succession Act. Upon further appeal, the High Court
agreed with the view taken by the appellate court. The
782
High Court, however, granted a small share to the widow
stating that according to law in force in the erstwhile
Travancore State, the widow would have inherited the share
which would have fallen to any of the sons.
The question for our consideration is whether the widow
got absolute right or only a restricted right over the ‘A’
schedule after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession
Act. The answer to the question turns upon the scope and
meaning to be given to the terms of Ex. 1, the relevant
portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“… 3. As it was decided by us to partition our
family properties providing to maintain
Kothamachiyar Ammal, who is the wife of executant
No. 1 and mother of others and the aforesaid
Lakshmi Ammal, this partition deed is written with
the stipulation mentioned below and it is fully
agreed by us to abide by the provisions contained
herein.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
9. During the life time of the 1st executant as
and when the marriage of the said Lakshmi Ammal is
decided to be conducted the first executant
himself shall meet the expense in connection with
that and conduct her marriage and if her marriage
happened to be conducted after the death of 1st
executant, executants Nos. 2 and 3 shall have
right to encumber the ‘A’ schedule property for an
amount up to Rs.2, to meet the expenses for
marriage ceremonies and for dowry and gold
ornaments and the A schedule proper ties shall be
liable for so much amount. 10. Kothamachi kyar
Ammal, the wife of first executant and mother of
other executants may reside in the building
included in the A Schedule during her life time
and take the income of the properties included in
the A schedule after the death of the 1st
executant; after the death of the 1st executant
the successor-in-interest of the 1st executant
shall have no right to create any document, except
in the manner stated in paragraphs 9 above
encumbering A schedule properties so as not to
affect the right of enjoyment of the said person
but this provision will not be binding on the 1st
executant as regards his absolute right over the A
schedule properties.
783
The first executant referred to above was Maharaja
Pillai. The widow we are concerned was his wife. On August
31, 1955 Maharaja Pillai died. There-after ‘A’ schedule
items in the partition deed were being enjoyed by the widow.
While she was in possession of those properties the Hindu
Succession Act of 1956 came into force. Subsequently, the
widow had gifted those properties in favour of her daughter.
The case of the plaintiff was that after the death of
Maharaja Pillai, the said properties would devolve upon his
heirs and he would be entitled to 1/3rd share. It has been
urged by Mr. Vishwanath Iyer, learned counsel for the
respondents that the properties in A schedule would remain
in possession of the widow with the right to utilise the
income therefrom for her maintenance but the properties were
not given to her in lieu of maintenance. It was also urged
that Maharaja Pillai had absolute power of disposal over the
properties during his life time, and it would be therefore
not proper to hold that the widow got the properties in lieu
of her maintenance.
We are unable to agree with these contentions. It is
not necessary for us to examine what would have happened to
the rights of the wife if Maharaja Pillai had disposed of
the ‘A’ schedule. The fact remains that he did not. During
the life time of Maharaja Pillai, the wife was residing in
the house allotted to her husband. She was being maintained
by her husband. After the death of husband, she was in
exclusive possession of the ‘A’ schedule. She was taking the
income from those properties. She had a right to utilise
that income for her maintenance. That right was conferred on
her under Ex. D1. The children also were, allotted separate
properties under Ex. D1. They had taken their respective
shares from the family properties. In our opinion the
properties possessed by the widow fairly and squarely fall
under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 14
provides:
” 1. Any property possessed by a female Hindu,
whether acquired before or after the commencement
of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner
thereof and not as a limited(l owner
Explanation-In this sub-section, “Property”
includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or
device or at a partition, or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift
from any person, whether a relative or not,
before, at or after her marriage or by her own
skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription or any other manner what so
784
ever, and also any such property held by her as
stridhan A immediately before the commencement of
this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall
apply to any property acquired by way of gift or
under a will or any other instrument or under a
degree or order of a civil court or under an award
where the terms of the gift, will or other
instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe
“a restricted state in such property.”
The property possessed by a female referred to under
Section 14(1) includes property both movable and immovable,
property. It may be acquired by a female Hindu by
inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance etc. The deed or any
other arrangement by which the husband gives the property to
his wife for maintenance need not specifically state that it
is given in lieu of maintenance. It is not an act of charity
the husband does. It is out of his personal obligation to
maintain her. The right to maintenance of a Hindu woman is a
personal obligation of the husband. If, therefore, the wife
is put in exclusive possession of the property with the
right to take the income for her maintenance, it must be
presumed that the property is given to her in lieu of
maintenance. The very right to receive maintenance which is
inherent in her, is itself sufficient to enable the ripening
of possession of any property into full ownership under
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
It was, however, urged for the respondents that Section
14(1) does not take within its fold every property that
comes into possession. Of the widow. It must be a limited
estate in the sense of ownership without the right of
disposal. It should be a specific property given to her in
lieu of her right to maintenance.
Similar contentions have been considered and rejected
in a recent decision of this Court in Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v.
Mohinder Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1980 date
20.7.87 (to which one of us was a party, K. Jagannatha
Shetty, J. ) . There it was observed:
“It is obvious that Section 14 is aimed at
removing restriction no limitation 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 device or at a
785
partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or
exertion or by pruchase or by prescription or in
any other manner whatsoever. The explanation
expressly refers to property acquired in lieu of
maintenance and we do not see what further title
the widow is required to establish before she can
claim full ownership under Section 14(1) in
respect of property given to her and possessed by
her in lieu of maintenance. The very right to
receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable
the ripening of possession into full ownership if
she is in possession of the property in lieu of
maintenance. Subsection (2) of Section 14 is in
the nature of an exception to Section 14(1) and
provides for a situation where property is
acquired by a female Hindu under a written
instrument or a decree of court and not where such
acquisition is traceable to any antecedents
right.”
It was urged that the view taken in above case was
contrary to the decision in Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai
Chelabhai & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 291. We do not agree with
this contention also. Indeed a similar contention was urged
in Gulwant Kaur’s case and it was rejected by observing:
“We do not understand that court as laying down
that what was enlarged by sub-section 1 of Section
14 into a full estate was the Hindu women’s estate
known to Hindu law. When the Court uses the word
limited estate, the words are used to connote a
right in the property to which the possession of
the female Hindu may be legitimately traced, but
which is not a full right of ownership. If a
female Hindu is put in possession of property
pursuant to or in recognition of a right to
maintenance, it cannot be denied that she has
acquired a limited right or interest in the
property and once that position is accepted it
follows that the right gets enlarged to full
ownership under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. That seems
to us to follow clearly from the language of Sec.
14(1) of the Act.”
Bai Vijia’s case, has not laid down any different
principle. It has expressly accepted the view taken in V.
Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddi, [1977] 3 SCR 261 at 310 this Court
summarised the scope of Section 14 as follows:
786
“(1) The Hindu female’s right to maintenance is
not an empty formality or an illusory claim being
conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but
is a tangible right against property which flows
from the spiritual relationship between the
husband and the wife and is recognised and
enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law and has been
strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurist
starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu. Such a right
may not be a right to property but it is a right
against property and the husband has a personal
obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the
family has property the female has the legal right
to be maintained therefrom. If a charge is created
for the maintenance of a female the said right
becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate,
even without a charge the claim for maintenance is
doubtless a pre-existing right so that any
transfer declaring or recognising such a right
does not confer any new title but merely endorses
or confirms the pre existing rights.
(2) Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have
been couched in the widest possible term and must
be liberally construed in favour of the female so
as to advance the object of 1956 Act and promote
the socio economic ends sought to be achieved by
this long need legislation.
(3) Sub-section (2) of S. 14 is in the nature of a
proviso and has a field of its own without
interfering with the operation of S. 14(1)
materially. The proviso should not be construed in
a manner so as to destroy the effect of the main
provision or the protection granted by S. 14(1) or
in a way so as to become totally inconsistent with
the main provision.
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
In the instant case the property under A Schedule was
allotted against the share of Maharaja Pillai. The same
property was given to the possession of the widow with a
right to take the income for her maintenance. This is
sufficient to call into aid Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act.
In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment OF the High Court and also the lower appellate
court and restore that of the trial court.
S.L Appeal allowed.
787