ORDER
J.D. Kapoor, J.
1. Clumsiness in human relations knows no bounds. The plaintiff wants to evict his son and grant-son from the house which once was owned by his mother and gifted to him subsequently as he and his wife are allegedly being beaten and subjected to humiliation on daily basis.
2.
The plaintiff has two more sons who are living in the same house. However defendants 1 & 2 have been harassing and abusing the plaintiff and his wife and on few occasions even physically assaulted them in order to pressurise them to leave the house of which the plaintiff is the absolute the exclusive owner. So much so they were insulted, humiliated before the people of locality and intervention by relatives and friends has not helped the parties in resolving their disputes.
3.
The defendants started staking their claim in the suit property when they were asked to vacate the premises because of their highly unbecoming conduct culminating in physical beating to the plaintiff and his wife and when they started threatening to dispossess them by bringing in outsiders to terrorise them, the plaintiff was constrained to seek the relief of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants for peaceful enjoyment of the first floor of the suit property.
4.
On the other hand, the defendants allege that the plaintiff is under the evil influence of his other two sons and is so ungrateful that inspite of having lived with them and availed their services and attention for a very long period that he has taken this unholy step.
5.
Defendants are resisting their dispossession on the ground that the property in question was purchased out of the funds of claim compensation in lieu of the ancestral properties left in Pakistan and as such is the Joint Hindu Family undivided property.
6.
The facts pleaded by the plaintiff in support of his being the exclusive owner of the suit premises and the occupation of the ground floor by the defendants as licensee are in brief as under:-
7. On Shri Raghunandan Lal was the original owner/allottee of the suit property bearing N.H-10/16, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was a lease hold property and the President of India through Land & Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as the L&DO) was the Lesser. The lease deed in favor of Shri Raghunandan Lal was registered on 12th October, 1964. Smt. Ved Kaur, the mother of the plaintiff and grand-mother of defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from Shri Raghunandan Lal vide sale deed dated 25th October, 1966 registered on 28th October, 1966. Thereafter Smt. Ved Kaur gifted the said property to the plaintiff vide gift deed dated 6th November, 1979 which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 7th November, 1979 after obtaining necessary permission from the L&DO. Interestingly defendant No. 1 signed the said gift deed as one of the witnesses.
8. The suit property was a single storeyed residential house constructed on 100 sq. yards of land at the time when it was gifted to the plaintiff but subsequently in the year 1982-83 the plaintiff reconstructed the said property after getting the plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The funds for construction were partly arranged from his own savings and income and partly by raising loans from his office. In march, 1988 the plaintiff retired from his Government service. He constructed another 1 1/2 storey on the second floor of the suit property in the year 1988-89 out of the funds received by him by way of retirement benefits. Two and half storeyed building was constructed keeping in view of future requirements of his family including the defendants.
9. It is averred that all the three sons of the plaintiff are residing in the suit property and are in different portions of the suit property and none of them is entitled to abuse the license given to them by the plaintiff. As regards electricity and water connections provided to the building these are also in the name of the plaintiff and charges are also being paid by the plaintiff. Moreover house tax has all along been paid by him.
10. The defendants have contested the claim of the plaintiff so doggedly that defendant No. 1 has even challenged the authority of his grand-mother to gift the property to his father. According to them the suit property is an ancestral property being a Hindu Joint and Undivided Family property and will thus devolve on the surviving co-parceners to the exclusion of other and, therefore, Smt. Ved Kaur had no authority to gift the property to the plaintiff. According to the defendants the gift deed is non-est in law and cannot pass any valid title of absolute ownership to the plaintiff and further that since they have also substantially contributed towards construction of first and the second floor, the plaintiff cannot in any manner claim to be the owner of the suit property.
11. While tracing out the background as to how this property was purchased by his grand mother, the defendant No. 1 averred that the family originally hailed from Pakistan and it was only during partition that their grand mother Smt. Ved Kaur, Along with the plaintiff migrated to India and under the provisions of the Displaced Person’s Act, 1954, persons who had migrated from Pakistan in India could claim compensation provided they held properties in Pakistan. Accordingly Smt Ved Kaur made an application in this behalf to the Regional Settlement Commissioner and under the provisions of the said Act and Claims Act, 1950 the plaintiff also submitted his claim for the value of Rs. 55,056.15 which was assessed in favor of the plaintiff under the Claims Act, 1950.
12. The mother of the plaintiff appealed to the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 1st July, 1957 for the claim to be apportioned in two portions as the plaintiff was unable to defray his household expenses from his own earnings and she had no income of her own. Pursuant to the said appeal the Settlement Officer on 27th September, 1957 passed an order apportioning half of the claim to her and half to her son. The property left in Pakistan was verified to be an ancestral property. In the year 1966 from the monies received from the claim, the suit property was purchased for a sum of Rs. 12,200/- out of the Joint Fund of the family received as compensation. Thus Smt. Ved Kaur had no absolute right or title in the said property and was legally not authorised to gift the same.
13. Further that Smt. Ved Kaur was illiterate and could not understand, read or write English whereas the gift deed drafted is in English and this shows that the contents and the language was dictated by the plaintiff himself. As the plaintiff was earning a very meagre salary and was burdened with various responsibilities and at the relevant time the defendant No. 1 was a bachelor he contributed his entire salary towards the construction of the house and also got liquidated the membership of a Co-operative Group Housing Society where he had deposited Rs. 3,000/- and gave the said money to his father Along with the other brothers. Similarly, they have also been contributing towards the property tax, electricity and water charges etc.
14.
As regards the allegation of misconduct and misbehavior towards the plaintiff, they averred that the boot was on the other leg. The plaintiff has all along been living with him as the other two brothers has ousted him. While the plaintiff has no control over other two sons who are living independently in the said property, his behavior is very callous towards him and his family though he has never complained of the same and has always given the plaintiff due respect and care and been always concerned for their well being. So much so the people of the locality, relatives and others have intervened at times and have told them that defendant No. 1 is the only son who is sharing his living with them while the other children are not bothered about them and, therefore, they should not, under the influence of other, unnecessarily criticize and harass the defendants.
15.
The defendants have taken pains in finding out as to what were their ancestral properties in respect of which the claims were given to the plaintiff’s mother. As many as 27 properties were acquired by the Joint and Hindu Undivided Family in Pakistan and the total value of the claim was Rs. 57,736.60.
16. The plaintiff reiterated his claim as to his being the absolute owner of the premises which were acquired by his mother independently and even if these were out of the funds of the claim received in lieu of the ancestral properties left in Pakistan still the father of the plaintiff had died in 1935 that is before the partition of the country and thus she became the absolute owner of the suit property the moment it was purchased in her name and as per provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she had the absolute authority to dispose off the property in any manner she might have preferred.
17. Aforesaid pleadings gave rise to the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property? OPP
2. Whether the Gift Deed dated 6.11.1979 is non-est in the eyes of law? OPD
3. Relief.”
ISSUE No. 2
18. Since both the issues are interconnected they are being taken up together.
19. As is apparent the plaintiff is basing his claim mainly on the strength of the gift deed executed by his mother in his favor. In order to prove that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property and the gift deed executed by his mother was duly acted upon the plaintiff has proved the following documents:-
(i) Exhibit PW-1/1, the lease deed showing the ownership of Raghunandan Lal.
(ii) Exhibit PW-1/2, the sale deed dated 25th October, 1966 vide which the suit property was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff.
(iii) Exhibit PW-1/3, the gift deed vide which the mother of the plaintiff had gifted the suit property in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant himself is one of the witnesses of the execution of the said gift deed.
(iv) Exhibit PW-1/4, the mutation letter issued by L&DO in favor of the mother of the plaintiff.
(v) Exhibit PW-1/5, the mutation letter issued in favor of the plaintiff.
(vi) Exhibit PW-1/6 to PW-1/11, the photo copies of the electricity and water bills and house tax receipts.
(vii) Exhibit PW-1/12, the mortgage deed by virtue of which the plaintiff had mortgaged the property with the Bank for raising loan for construction.
20. As against this, the defendant has proved the following documents:-
(i) Exhibit DW-1/P-1 & P-2 are the statement of account issued by the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner with regard to the settlement claim on gross compensation determination in favor of the plaintiff and his mother.
(ii) Exhibit DW-1/P-4 & P-5 are the signatures of the plaintiff.
(iii) Exhibit DW-1/P-6 is the Appeal filed by the mother of the plaintiff for apportionment of the verified claims into two equal shares.
(iv) Exhibit DW-1/P-7 is the order passed on the Appeal apportioning the share of the mother of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/2 of the share verified in favor of the plaintiff.
(v) Exhibit DW-1/P-8 is the notice received by the mother of the plaintiff from the Regional Settlement Commissioner requesting the mother of the plaintiff to send the statement of accounts.
(vi) Exhibit DW-1/P-9, the reply given by the mother of the plaintiff to the Settlement Commissioner stating therein that the amount of Rs. 3380/- granted under statement of account issued on 2.1.1990 has been utilised.
21.
However in cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that in lieu of the properties held by him in Pakistan he had filed a claim before the Settlement Officer and that claim was based on the properties which means that he would have inherited those properties from his father. The claim of Rs. 57,000/- was passed by the Claims Officer out of which his mother received 10,000/- to 12,000/-. This compensation was received by them in parts. He admitted that he did not purchase any property in Rohtak and Jangpura from the compensation received. He denied that the properties at Rohtak and Jangpura were purchased out of this compensation and were further sold by him at handsome profit. However he admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from his office for construction of his house at Rohtak but this property was not connected with the rehabilitation Department. Thus the property in Malviya Nagar was purchased by her mother from her own resources and it was purchased approximately for Rs. 12,000/-. He further deposed that after the Malviya Nagar property was gifted to him by his mother he took loan of Rs. 51,000/- from the Government and constructed 2 1/2 storeyed structure thereon. While the construction was being carried he took the premises on rent.
22.
As against this the defendant who was examined as DW-1 admitted that he was 8 years old when the Malviya Nagar property was purchased by his grant mother and prior to this they were living in a rented house in Mori Gate and his father used to run the house but they also used to contribute. He admitted that he did not raised any objection to the mutation of the property having been effected in the name of his father as well as in the record of the MCD. He also admitted that house tax, water and electricity bills were assessed in the name of his father. Similarly he also did not raise objection as to the mortgage of the property for raising the loan for carrying out the construction. He failed to produce any document to show any contribution made by him towards construction of the house. He admitted that he did not pay the entire salary to his parents and that he only made the payment as and when accounts for particular expenditure were shown to him by his father. He also admitted during his long stay abroad i.e. Iraq, he did not send any part of his salary to his father. He admitted that prior to 1979 i.e. before he was employed his father looked after his needs.
23.
It was in cross-examination of this witness that he was confronted with large number of document referred above to show that amount of claims was settled by the Settlement Commissioner as a result of which separate amount was received by the plaintiff and separate amount was received by the mother of the plaintiff.
24.
All the aforesaid documents show that in the year 1957 the mother of the plaintiff got segregated her claim from the claim of her son. It is contended that in view of the segregation of claim she had become the absolute owner of the amount which she received by way of segregation and also by way of sale of those claims vide aforesaid documents of agreement of association.
25.
According to the defendant all these exercises were done for convenience only so that the parties may remain joint throughout their life and there was never a virtual partition. According to him the property at Malviya Nagar was purchase from the sale proceeds of the property at Bali Nagar and was purchased in the name of the mother of the plaintiff as a benami. It is contended that since the mother of the plaintiff did not have any source of income as she has always been a house wife therefore she did not have any source of funds to even spend for herself what to talk of the funds for purchasing the property like the one in question, question of purchasing the said property out of her own funds does not arise.
26. The defendant has tried to prove that the plaintiff’s mother had no source at all to purchase the suit property and has examined Sunil Dua, DW-2 who has stated that in the year 1960 the plaintiff’s basic salary was Rs. 160/-, in the year 1964 Rs. 300/- and in the year 1966 it was Rs. 330/-. It is contended that with such a meagre salary it was not possible for the mother of the plaintiff to arrange the money for purchasing the suit property at Malviya Nagar.
27.
DW-3 Shri S.L. Jain was examined to prove that the defendant No. 1 had liquidated his membership of the society and the membership amount of Rs. 3120/- was refunded to him. This witness was produced to prove that the defendant No. 1 also contributed towards the construction by making this payment. But no proof of payment of this amount to the plaintiff was adduced.
28.
Another witness examined by the defendant is DW-4 Ami Chand who produced the record of claims filed in his Department. According to the record claim application bearing no. 65716 pertaining to house no. 73, 1/8th portion of property in village Marudi, Rangram, District Rohtak mesuring 2439 sq. ft. was allotted to the plaintiff. In addition thereto agricultural land measuring 1 Bigha 10 Biswas, 18 Bigha 16 Biswas, and 1 Bigha 1 Biswas was also allotted at village Muradi Rangram, District Rohtak on 1st September, 1949, 8th February, 1950 and 10th February, 1950 respectively. The adjustment of Rs. 8210/- is shown in Exhibit DW-4/2, DW-4/3 and DW-4/4. The application was also filed by the plaintiff’s mother for settlement and the settlement thereof is Exhibit DW-4/5.
29.
The defendant has thus tried to make out a case that the property in question was purchased out of the funds received by means of claim from the ancestral properties left in Pakistan and the said funds were first utilized in purchasing the property at Rohtak and thereafter plot no. 43, Bali Nagar on 8th June, 1961 for Rs. 6112/- in the name of the plaintiff and this plot was sold by means of registered sale deed dated 4th March, 1966 for Rs. 12,932/- and out of these sale proceeds the property at Malviya Nagar was purchased in March, 1966 itself which at the relevant time comprised of ground floor and for which the sale deed was executed in October, 1966. Thus according to the defendant substantial amount was paid on 30th March, 1966 and subsequently the first floor and second floor were constructed with the joint contributions of the defendant and his other brothers.
30. As against this the plaintiff has first tried to set up his claim on the basis of the segregation of the shares of the plaintiff and his mother in the year 1957 before the Settlement Commissioner by virtue of which she had become the absolute owner of the compensation amount. Thus in the light of these facts and the evidence the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that since the defendant had remained silent and not challenged any of the aforesaid transactions for purchase of the property by his grand mother till the date of filing of the written statement i.e. till April, 1998 nor had taken any steps for cancellation of the gift deed to which the defendant was one of the witnesses or of the sale deed even if the property was deemed or considered as Joint Hindu Family he is estopped from challenging the ownership of the plaintiff as his right to challenge it has extinguished after three years as per provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
31.
It is further contended that to challenge these documents or the right of the plaintiff’s mother to give the property in question at the stage when the suit for possession has been filed is not open to the defendants. Further that in case the defendants had challenged the documents in question viz. the sale deed and gift deed during her life time she was the best person to answer the averments of the defendants and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be put to jeopardy by entertaining the pleas of the defendants which they did not raise during the life time of the plaintiff’s mother or within the prescribed period of 3 years of the execution of the gift deed. Next that it is a mere suit for possession and not suit for title and it is only in the suit for title that the onus in cast upon the plaintiff to prove the absolute title.
32. In the alternative, learned counsel for the plaintiff has also contended that even if it is assumed that the suit property was purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral property, still by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the mother of the plaintiff who became widow in 1935 i.e. about 15 years before the receipt of claim compensation in lieu of the properties left in Pakistan in 1947, she was entitled to dispose of the property in any matter she might have preferred.
33. Section 14 lays down as under:-
“14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – (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 owner.
(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 decree 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 estate in such property.”
34.
While canvassing the above proposition of law the counsel has placed reliance upon Veddebyina Tulasamma and other Vs. Veddeboyina SeshaReddi(dead) by LRs AIR 1977 SC 1944 wherein the interpretation and sanctity of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came up for consideration.
35.
In the said case the appellant claimed maintenance out of the joint family properties in the hands of the respondent who was her deceased husband’s brother. The claim was decreed in favor of the appellant and in execution of the decree for maintenance, as compromise was arrived at between the parties allotting the properties in question to the appellant for her maintenance and giving her limited interest in such properties.
36.
It was held that since in the present case the properties in question were acquired by the appellant under the compromise in lieu of satisfaction of her right of maintenance, it was sub-section (1) and not sub-section (2) of Section 14 Which would be applicable and hence the appellant must be deemed to have become full owner of the properties notwithstanding that the compromise prescribed a limited interest for her in the properties.
37.
It was further held that Sub-section (1) of Section 14 is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possessed by her at the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired and possessed, she would become the full owner of the property. Sub-section (2) is more in the nature of a proviso or exception to sub-section (1). It except certain kinds of acquisition of property by a Hindu female from the operation of sub-section (1) and being in the nature of an exception to a provision which is calculated to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of woman in Hindu society, it must be construed strictly so as to impinge as little as possible on the broad sweep of the ameliorative provision contained in sub-section (1). It cannot be interpreted in a manner which would rob Sub-Section (1) of its efficacy and deprive a Hindu female of the protection sought to be given to her by sub-section (1).
38.
Similar view was taken in Mangat Mal (deed) and another Vs. Smt. Punni Devi (dead) and others wherein it was held that whatever be the kind of property, moveable or immovable and whichever be the mode of acquisition, it would be covered by Section 14(1) as the object of the Legislature was to wipe out the disabilities from which a Hindu woman suffered in regard to the ownership of property under the old Sastric Law and to recognise her status as an independent and absolute owner of the property.
39. In Badri Prasad Vs. Kanso Devi the property acquired by a Hindu widow under an award for partition of her late husband’s estate was the subject matter of the controversy. It was held that the word ‘acquired’ in Section 14(1) had to be given the widest possible meaning. This was so because of the language of the Explanation which made sub-section (1) applicable to acquisition of property by inheritance of devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by a female’s own skill or exertion or by purchase or prescription or in any manner whatsoever.
40.
In Eramma Vs. Verrupanna 5(1996) 2 SCR 626 it was held that mere possession of property by a widow is not sufficient to attract the operation of Section 14. What is contemplated under Section 14 is the property possessed by a female Hindu to which she had acquired some of the title whether before or after the commencement of the Act.
41.
Similar view was taken in Mangal Singh Vs. Rattno and Bai Vajia Vs. Thakorbhai Chellabhai .
42.
Thus according to the counsel for the plaintiff the pleas raised by the defendants that the mother of the plaintiff was a housewife and did not have her own income and was not in a position to raise to funds to purchase the property has no relevance as there is a complete bar to take such pleas in respect of her title as the property was acquired by her as a widow.
43. In refutation the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that it is misconception that female becomes the absolute owner of the property after the death of her husband as enunciated in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act as Hindu Women Right to Property Act is the relevant law. It did not give any ownership right to any female members and the rights were only confined to live during the life time and it is only by virtue of this Act that the females were given equal rights as the males were having and thus even these provisions would not have made any female for instance the mother of the plaintiff an absolute owner of the entire estate to the exclusion of all other legal heirs but it only conferred right to inherit her own share in the property.
44.
Learned counsel for the defendant while canvassing this proposition has placed reliance on Pachi Krishanamna Vs. Kumaran Krishnan AIR 1982 Kerala 137. But the difference in facts sticks out for miles. In the said case a suit for partition was filed and a partition decree was passed and widow of one of the deceased co-parceners was in possession of the property. She was denied benefit of Section 14 on the basis of her possession in the co-parcenary property.
45.
Instant case is on much stronger footing so far as the absoluteness of the ownership of the plaintiff’s mother is concerned.
46. I am afraid the contention that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not give any ownership right to any female member to the exclusion of all other legal heirs is difficult to accept as these rights not only confine to live during the life time but also make her full owner whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act but the condition precedent is that the widow should have been in possession at the relevant time.
47. In the present case the property was acquired in 1966 by the mother of the plaintiff under registered sale deed and thereafter it was gifted to the plaintiff under gift deed in November, 1979 and since it was her absolute property the title of the mother of the plaintiff cannot be challenged.
48. Admittedly she had no independent source of income. She became widow in 1935 i.e. much before the claims in respect of properties held by her husband were compensated. Thus she was absolute owner of the suit property which she gifted to the plaintiff in the year 1979 and more so there was no challenge to those title documents for decades together. Further the documents produced by the plaintiff show that the loan was raised by the plaintiff for the purpose of additional construction of 1 1/2 storey in the house gifted to him by his mother and this shows that in fact he spent his own money because of his absolute ownership of the property flowing from a gift deed. On the contrary no documentary evidence of any kind has been produced by the defendant to show any contribution made by the defendant or his children for construction of the house.
49.
Even otherwise it is admitted position that the mother of the plaintiff who became widow in 1935 was possessed of the property in 1966. Even if it is assumed to have been purchased through claims compensation received in lieu of ancestral property and was not in any manner fettered by contingencies contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus she was the absolute owner of the said property when she gifted it to the plaintiff.
50.
She had received a sum of Rs. 3380/- by way of sale of her claim in the year 1961. Suit property was purchased by way of sale deed in 1966. If the contention of the learned counsel for defendant is accepted this amount was retained by her till 1966 for purchase of this property.
51.
To expect a widow to keep the amount of Rs. 3380/- for 5-6 long years intact, is beyond imagination. She may not be having any source of income or any other source but the fact remains that the suit property was purchased by her by way of a sale deed in her own name. Sources of funds are irrelevant for the purpose of acquiring ownership of a property by a widow after 5 to 6 long years of receiving compensation claim in lieu of ancestral properties.
52.
Thus from any aspect we may view the matter, the ineluctable conclusion is that the mother of the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the property and had unfettered right to deal with the property in any manner she liked. By virtue of gift, by the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also become the absolute and sole owner of the suit property.
53.
As a result, Issue No. 1 is decided in favor of the plaintiff. As regards Issue No. 2, the gift deed is in no way nonest in law as it was executed by the person who was the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property and was legally authorized to execute the deed. As such Issue No. 2 is answerer in the negative.
54. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint without any order as to the costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.