Possession of Hindu Female Must Not Only Be Possessed of The Property but She Must Have Acquired It for Establishing Full Ownership U/S 14(1) Of Hindu Succession Act: Supreme court
Case title: MUKATLAL VS KAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 12842 OF 2018
Dated on: 16th May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA and Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The instant appeal by special leave challenges the final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029 of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 was dismissed. The core question of law involved in this appeal is as to the right of the plaintiff Kailash Chand being legal heir of Hindu widow Smt. Nand Kanwar bai to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Succession Act’) by filing a suit in the Revenue Court. Few facts, most germane and relevant to the issue are required to be extracted from the chronology of dates and events. The suit property was owned by Kishan Lal who had two sons, namely, Mangilal and Madho Lal. Madho Lal was married to Smt. Nandkanwarbai. Mangilal had a son Kanwarlal. Mangilal died in the year 1912 whereas Madho Lal died issueless in 1929. Smt. Nandkanwarbai claims to have adopted plaintiff Kailash Chand on 12th June, 1959 that is nearly after 30 years from the date of death of Madho Lal. Kanwarlal had executed a will of the entire unpartitioned estate in favour of defendant Mukat Lal (appellant herein) on 9th February, 1949. Shri Kanwarlal passed away in the year 1954. Thus, the suit property devolved upon defendant Mukat Lal under the will executed by late Shri Kanwarlal. Smt. Nandkanwarbai, widow of late Madho Lal filed a Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit property contending that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property and that the will be allegedly executed by late Kanwarlal was illegal. It was further contended in the suit that defendant Mukta Lal was not entitled to any share in the HUF property by virtue of the will. The Civil Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1959 while recognizing the right of Smt. Nandkanwarbai only to the extent of receiving maintenance from the suit property. Smt. Nandkanwarbai, did not challenge the said judgment any further. However, defendant Mukat Lal on attaining majority, preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 21st May, 1959 which was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 9th February, 1968 and the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court in favour of Smt. Nandkanwarbai to the extent of the right to receive maintenance from the suit property was set aside. Being aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred a Second Appeal No. 347 of 1968 before the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court. During the pendency of the said second appeal, in the year 1972 Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away and her legal heir i.e. plaintiff Kailash Chand was taken on record. Learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment dated 20th March, 1973 allowed the second appeal filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai and restored the civil Court’s judgment to the extent of her right to be maintained from the suit property. Resultantly, the status of defendant Mukat Lal as being the beneficiary of the suit lands as being the legatee of the will made by his father Shri Kanwarlal stood crystallized. The present appeal arises from the aforesaid Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 seeking partition which culminated in the impugned judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
ISSUES
- Whether Smt. Nandkanwarbai, the widow of late Madho Lal, had any interest in the suit property that could transform into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Whether the requirement of possession under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was fulfilled in this case, considering the dismissal of Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s previous suit for possession and title over the suit property.
- Whether the previous civil court judgments, which recognized only Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s right to maintenance from the suit property, operated as res judicata, thereby precluding her legal heir, Kailash Chand, from claiming partition of the suit property.
- Whether the right to maintenance conferred upon Smt. Nandkanwarbai constituted sufficient possession or interest in the property to attract the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
- Whether Kailash Chand, as the adopted son of Smt. Nandkanwarbai, could enforce his rights to partition the joint Hindu family property based on the succession rights of his adoptive mother under the Hindu Succession Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 14(1): Property of a Female Hindu to be Her Absolute Property
This section provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner.
The section is aimed at converting any limited estate held by a woman into an absolute estate, provided she was in possession of the property.
Section 14(2): Exceptions to the Absolute Ownership Rule
This section carves out an exception to Section 14(1), stating that the transformation to absolute ownership does not apply to any property acquired by a female Hindu through a gift, will, or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or an award, where the terms of the acquisition prescribe a restricted estate.
- Principles of Res Judicata
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908: Res Judicata
This section states that no court shall try any suit or issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.
It precludes the re-litigation of issues that have already been settled in previous judgments.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant advanced the following pertinent submissions and urged that the Division Bench erred in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restoring the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court. That Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no interest, either limited or otherwise, in the suit land which could fructify into absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Succession Act and the Division Bench erred in treating “Charge over property towards Maintenance” as possession over the property. It was contended that in order to attract Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, there must be a “Property possessed by the Hindu Women” but in the present case, the suit for possession and title filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai was dismissed and hence she was never in possession, either legal or actual, over the suit property. That the civil suit for title and possession filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai having been dismissed, the judgment of the civil Court operated as res judicata and hence the relief could not have been granted to her adopted son [Kailash Chand(plaintiff)] in the subsequent partition suit filed in the Revenue Court. The plank contention of Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant for assailing the impugned judgments was that the deceased widow Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property and as a consequence, her adopted son, plaintiff Kailash Chand, was precluded from claiming partition of the suit property by virtue of succession and hence, the Revenue suit was not maintainable. He had placed reliance on the findings arrived at by the civil Court in the suit filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai to buttress this contention.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the issue in the present case regarding the ambit of the rights of a female Hindu on the undivided joint Hindu family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act has been settled by this Court in the case of Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi Dead) Thr LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal Dead) Thr LRs & Ors.3 He placed reliance on the pertinent observations (reproduced infra) made by this Court in Munni Devi(supra) and implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgments. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
A Bench of two Honourable Judges of this Court after considering the gamut of Section 14 of the Succession Act in the case of Munni Devi(supra) observed as below: In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt 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 recognizing the position as was existing under the Shastric Hindu Law. Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of the said property. She is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance. Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by the said legislation. Thus it is clear from the above observations and findings in the case of Munni Devi(supra) that this Court after taking into consideration the pre-existing right of Bhonri Devi to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband and her exclusive settled possession over the suit property concluded that she had acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act. Thus, what we are required to adjudicate in the present case is as to whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff Kailash Chand being the legal heir of Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to institute a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property. In this very context, we would like to gainfully refer to the judgments of this Court which were relied upon by Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Seen in the light of the ratio of the above judgments, it is clear that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. in this context, when we consider the effect of the earlier civil suit instituted by Smt. Nadkanwarbai (deceased widow), it becomes clear that she was never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession and the same was dismissed. This finding of the civil Court was never challenged. Since, Smt. Nadkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff Kailash Chand by virtue of inheritance. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set aside. Consequently, the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. 3 The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs. Decree be prepared accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
