The Supreme Court has held that where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, it is to be presumed that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi added that this becomes more particular when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance.
Facts of the Case
The matter pertains to Bhonri Devi, a widow claiming her right on an ancestral property. The subject property belonged to two brothers Harinarayanji (father of plaintiff) and his brother Ganeshnarayanji (father-in-law of defendant). The husband of Bhonri Devi predeceased his father in 1936. Ganeshnarayanji expired in 1938 and his brother Harinarayanji died in 1953.
It was the plaintiff's case that upon the death of Harinarayanj, Bhonri Devi started harassing him and therefore he left the suit property 1953 and since then, the defendant- Bhonri Devi claimed possession of the suit property illegally.
He thus claimed that after the death of Harinarayanji, he being the only male member in the family as well as the legatee under the Will of Harinarayanji, had become the sole owner of the suit property and, therefore, was entitled to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant- Bhonri Devi, who had no legal right or interest in the suit property.
To this, the defendant filed written statement contending that she being the wife of Dhannalalji and daughter-in-law of Ganeshnarayanji was in possession of the suit property as an owner and was maintaining herself from the income derived from the suit property. It was also contended that the limited right vested in her favour in the suit property, had enlarged into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into force on 17.06.1956.
The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by the Trial Court. However, later in an appeal, the said decision was set aside by the High Court and it was held that after the death of Shri Ganeshnarayanji in 1938, a limited right in the suit property was created in favour of Bhonri Devi and that the said Bhonri Devi had a right of maintenance even under the old Shastric Law, which had fructified into a full right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The plaintiff in the present appeal stands aggrieved of the above judgement of the High Court setting aside Trial Court ruling in his favour.
Submissions of Counsel for Appellant-Plaitiff
The Counsel for the appellant argued that the Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1937 had no application to the facts of the present case, as the suit property was located in the erstwhile State of Jaipur, where the said Act was not applicable. In the State of Jaipur, the Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1947 which came into force on 24.09.1947, was applicable, however, Shri Dhannalal having expired in 1936 and Ganeshnarayanji having expired in 1938 i.e., before the commencement of the Act of 1947, no limited right under the Act of 1947 was created in favour of the said Bhonri Devi. Even under Section 3(2) of 1937 Act, right in the joint family property was created only in favour of the widow of the deceased and not in favour of a daughter-in-law of a pre- 4 deceased son and cited
He further contended mere possession of property or a right to maintenance under the old Shastric Law did not give any right to the defendant no. 1 Bhonri Devi under Section 14(1) of the said Act of 1956.
His other key contentions included:
-There was no limited ownership created in favour of the defendant no.1 Bhonri Devi specifically in the suit property and that no presumption of limited ownership as sought to be asserted by her could be raised. The presumption must necessarily flow from some statutory or customary law of inheritance or by instrument or a decree or a device as contemplated in the Explanation II of Section 14(1) of the Act.
-The possession of suit property was never given to the defendant no. 1- Bhonri Devi in the nature of right to possess in lieu of her right of maintenance creating limited ownership in the suit property. Mere possession without any vestige of right in property would not attract Section 14(1). The existence of a pre-existing “limited ownership” is a sine qua non for the application of Section 14(1), inasmuch as it is only the limited ownership which would fructify and blossom into a full ownership under the said provision. Where no such “limited ownership” is shown to have existed, Section 14(1) has no application.
-Right to maintenance is not a “Right in a specific property” but it is a “Right against the properties of the joint family generally.”
-Mere right to maintenance without acquisition of title also would not be sufficient to attract Section 14 and that before any property could be said to be possessed by a Hindu Woman, as provided in Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, it has to be established that the woman had a right to the possession of the property in question and that she must have been in possession of such property either actually or constructively
-A Hindu Female having a right to maintenance would not ipso facto create any charge on the property. A right to maintenance may amount to a legal charge if such charge is created either by an agreement between the parties or by a decree. In this regard, Mr. Jain has relied upon the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
-In the alternative, Mr. Jain submitted that the defendant no.1- Bhonri Devi’s claims based on her right to maintenance could be raised only qua the share of Shri Ganeshnarayanji in the suit property which was to the extent of 1/4th of the suit property, and the remaining 3/4th share in the property belonged to the legitimate right of Daulalji and his heirs, as a consequence of the adoption of Daulalji and the Will dated 30.07.1949 executed by Harinarayanji in his favour. He also submitted that the probate in respect of the said Will was granted to the plaintiff Daulalji and that the claim of rival Will set up by the defendant no. 1 Bhonri Devi was negated by the Probate Court.
-The suit property being an ancestral property of the appellants, it should have been kept within their family and the present respondents who are the nephews and niece of the deceased Bhonri Devi, could not claim any right in the suit property.
Submissions of Counsel for Respondent-Defendant
It was primarily contended that the exclusive possession of widow of HUF property itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving coparcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance.
His further contentions included:
-The exclusive possession of defendant Bhonri Devi, after the death of Harinarayanji was never questioned by the plaintiff Daulalji. The suit property was only about 1/4th of the total HUF properties held by Harinarayanji and Ganeshnarayanji, yielding nominal rentals just enough for her sustenance, as compared to much bigger house at Purani Basti, two shops at Chandpole and other properties taken away by the original plaintiff-Daulalji.
-The expression “possession” contained in Section 14(1) is required to be given the widest possible meaning to include actual as well as constructive possession, like attornment of tenants in the present case. Likewise, the expression “acquire” is also required to be given a widest possible meaning to include acquisition by possession, especially when such possession of widow already satisfied her preexisting right of maintenance (V. Tulasamma & Ors Vs. V. Sesha Reddi, 1977 Latest Caselaw 90 SC)
-The expression “possession” contained in Section 14(1) is required to be given the widest possible meaning to include actual as well as constructive possession, like attornment of tenants in the present case. Likewise, the expression “acquire” is also required to be given a widest possible meaning to include acquisition by possession, especially when such possession of widow already satisfied her preexisting right of maintenance (Bai Vajia (Dead) By L.R.S. Vs. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors, 1979 Latest Caselaw 44 SC)
-Till the death of Harinarayanji in 1953, he held HUF properties as karta and the last surviving co-parcener in the direct line. However, all the rights, title and interest of Harinarayanji and his successor were subject to the preexisting right of maintenance in favour of Bhonri Devi and, therefore, even Harinarayanji could not have bequeathed more than whatever right, title or interest he had in the HUF properties, by executing the Will, in view of Section 30 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The plaintiff Daulalji, therefore, had also got the suit property as a legatee or co-parcener subject to the limited estate of Bhonri Devi, whose pre-existing right of maintenance from the suit property, made her absolute owner after Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956 came into force.
Conclusion
The legal question raised in the appeal for the Court to decide was whether Bhonri Devi had become an absolute owner on coming into force 15 the Act of 1956?
The Court after analysing the relevant provisions and facts of the case, accepted contentions of Counsel for the respondent.
The Court further remarked that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity. It is a tangible right against the property, which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. The said right was recognised and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law, which existed even before the passing of the 1937 or the 1946 Acts. Those Acts merely gave statutory backing recognising the position as was existing under the Shastric Hindu Law, the Court added.
Case Title: MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS. vs RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5894 OF 2019
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
