PETITIONER: SUKHRAM & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: GAURI SHANKAR & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/1967 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. SHELAT, J.M. CITATION: 1968 AIR 365 1968 SCR (1) 476 CITATOR INFO : E 1970 SC1730 (6) R 1970 SC1963 (7) RF 1977 SC1944 (35) D 1991 SC1581 (8) ACT: Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, s. 14(1)-Coparcenary governed by Benares School of Mitakshara rule that male coparcener cannot alienate his share of property without assent of other coparceners-- Whether applicable to widow's interest under s. 14(1). HEADNOTE: The first appellant, his brother H and his son the second appellant, constituted a Hindu Joint family and were governed by the Mitakshara law of the Benares School. He died in 1952 leaving him surviving his widow. On December 15, 1956, the widow sold a half share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint family to the first respondent. The appellants filed a suit for a decree declaring that the sale by the widow was without consideration and for an order can- celling the sale deed. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and, in appeal, by the High Court. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that under the Benares School of the Mitakshara, a male coparcener is not entitled to alienate even for value, his undivided interest in coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners except in certain specified cases, and by s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956 it could not have been intended to confer a larger right on the widow of a coparcener. HELD: On the death of her husband, the widow became entitled to the same interest which H had in the joint family property under s.3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 18 of 1937, in the joint family property of that interest, by virtue of s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, she became full owner on June 17, 1956 and being full owner she was competent to sell it for her own purpose without the consent of the male coparceners of her husband. [477D-G] A male member of a Hindu family governed by the. Benares School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in the joint family property. but a widow acquiring an interest in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not a ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has not chosen to impose. [478F] Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, L.R. 17 I.A. 194; Balgobind Das v. Narain Lal and Ors. L.R. 20 I.A. 116 and Chandradeo Singh & Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. T.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.); referred to. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
March 15, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 2434 of 1960.
N.C. Chatterjee, E. C. Agarwala, Kartar Singh and P.C.
Agarwala, for the appellants.
J. P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the respondents.
477
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Hukam Singh and Sukhram-the first appellant in this
appeal-were two brothers. Chidda-the second appellant, is
the son of Sukhram, Hukam Singh, Sukhram and Chidda consti-
tuted a Hindu joint family and were governed by the
Mitakshara Law of the Benares School. Hukam Singh died in
1952 leaving him surviving his wife Kishan Devi. On
December 15, 1956, Kishan Devi sold a half share in a house
and a shop belonging to the joint family, to Gauri Shankar.
Sukhram and his son Chidda then commenced an action in the
Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad for a decree declaring that
the sale by Kishan Devi to Gauri Shankar was without
consideration, and for an order cancelling the sale deed.
The suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the
District Court, Meerut, and the High Court of Allahabad.
In this appeal the only question which falls to be
determined is whether the sale deed executed by Kishan Devi
was binding upon the coparceners of her husband. On the
death of Hukam Singh in 1952, it is common ground Kishan
Devi acquired by virtue of s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s
Right to Property Act 18 of 1937, the same interest in the
property of the joint family which Hukam Singh had. That
interest was limited interest known as the ‘Hindu, Woman’s
estate’: s. 3(3) of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act,
1937. The Parliament enacted The Hindu Succession Act 30 of
1956, which by s. 14(1) provided that-
“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.”
The plea raised in the District Court that Kishan Devi was
not “possessed” of the property which she sold to Gauri
Shankar was rejected, and has not been set up before us.
Clearly therefore, on the express words of s. 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, Kishan Devi acquired on June 17, 1956,
rights of full ownership in the interest which Hukam Singh
had in the property of the family during his life time, and
she was competent without the consent of the male members of
the family to sell the property for her own purposes.
But Mr. Chatterjee for the appellants submits that under the
Benares School of the Mitakshara a male coparcener is not
entitled to alienate even for value his undivided interest
in coparcenary property without the consent of the other
coparceners, unless the alienation be for legal necessity,
or if the coparcener is the father, for payment by him of
his antecedent debts which are not illegal or avvavaharika,
and it could not have been intended by Parliament to confer
upon a widow in a Hindu family a larger right than the right
which the surviving coparceners could exercise at the date
of the sale by the widow. Counsel says that the Parliament
by Act 30
478
of 1956 merely intended to confer upon a Hindu widow rights
of full ownership in the interest in property in which she
had prior to that Act, only a limited interest, but did not
intend to destroy the essential character of joint family
property so as to invest the widow with power to alienate
that interest without the assent of the coparceners of her
husband.
It is true that under the Benares school of the Mitakshara a
caparcener may not, without the consent of the other
coparceners, sell his undivided share in the family estate
for his own benefit: Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh(1);
Balgobind Das v. Narain Lal and Ors. (2) and Chandradeo.
Singh & Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. (3) But the words of s.
14 of the Hindu Succession Act are express and explicit;
thereby a female Hindu possessed of property whether ac-
quired before or after the commencement of the Act holds it
as full owner and not as a limited owner. The interest to
which Kishan Devi became entitled on the death of her
husband under S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property
Act, 1937, in the property of the joint family is
indisputably her “property” within the meaning of S. 14 of
Act 30 of 1956, and when she became “full owner” of that
property she acquired a right unlimited in point of user and
duration and uninhibited in point of disposition.
We are unable to agree with Mr. Chatterjee that restrictions
on the right of the male members of a Hindu joint family
form the bed-rock on which the law relating to joint family
property under the Hindu Law is founded. Under the Law of
the Mitakshara as administered in the territory governed by
the Maharashtra and the Madras Schools and even in the State
of Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu coparcener is competent to
alienate for value his undivided interest in the entire
joint family property or any specific property without the
assent of his coparceners. A male member of a Hindu family
governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly
subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in
the joint family property but a widow acquiring an interest
in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is
not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not a
ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has
not chosen to impose.
On the death of her husband, Kishan Devi became entitled to
the same interest which Hukam Singh had in the joint family
property of that interest, she became full owner on June 17,
1956, and being full owner she was competent to sell that
interest for her own purposes, without the consent of the
male coparceners of her husband.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) L.R. 17 I.A. 194.
(2) L.R. 20 I.A. 116.
(3) I.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.).
479