Hans Raj And ORS v. Bhag Singh And ORS
!"# $%!$& ' '
'
''((!)) * + ,!$+-+
'
''!+("*%!* + & .
/'/0/
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
!
"
# ! $ % # "
& % ' '# ( '
! ) # %#
! !
* ! %#
' '# ! # '+,-. # )
! #
#
/ #
# # 0
%#
! ! # ! #
# !
%# '# & %# 1
# % # %# '# % # %# '# %# 233+3452 %# # ! %# 6 #
! ! 6 '# % # % "
! /
%
#
"
! ,3,7+,,5 /# % . 8 3 93 '# 9+ ' % 9.2
# :
!
%# !
# # % ) % 34;< = 34;< >
%#
:
!
! ## % 8 7;3
3453 ='# ? '# @ > 3+3+3452 ! % .A 6 # ! 6 !
!
! B
6
! ! # # !
3+3+3452 * %#
# $ !# '7,-. ##
B # #
% .
./#
%# '#
# % % / !
! %# '# !
# &
!
$ # ! AIR 1977 PH 341 ( Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs Harpal Singh And Ors. % 37 + 34;<
#
C/ 9.
3-.%# : ,;3+34;, % ' '# ( '
./ #
! #
) % 34;< 6 # $ # ) D % #
V. Tulasamma & Ors vs V.
Sesha Reddi, 1977(3) SCC 99
!
#
1 / % 37 34;< E.
=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.
Explanation.―In this sub!section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, 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 in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana 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 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;<
/ # ! ! ! # ) !
#
C/ % .% 3 % 37 34;< ! # ## !
"
! # ) !
# # !
# !
# !
/ ! ! !
#
! ! ! ##!
### % 34;< 6 % .% + % ./ # % 37 + 34;<
2 / % 34;< B # A ,'-) + 33 +-($ )
#1 # #! #!
! # 6 % 37 3 34;< /
# # !
# 6 / .% + % 37 34;<
% 34;< <+ /
E.
"62. We would now like to summarise the legal conclusions which we have reached after an exhaustive considerations of the authorities mentioned above; on the question of law involved in this appeal as to the interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956. These conclusions may be stated thus:
(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 jurists 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 terms. and must be liberally construed in favour of the females so as to advance the object of the 1956 Act and promote the socio!economic ends, sought to be achieved by this long needed legislation.
(3) Sub!section (2) of Section 14 is in the nature of a proviso and has a field of its own without interfering with the operation of Section 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 Section 14(1) or in a way so as to become totally inconsistent with the main provision.
(4) Sub!section (2) of Section 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise preexisting rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely declares or recognises a pre!existing right, such as a claim to maintenance or partition or share to which the female is entitled, the sub!section has absolutely no application and the female's limited interest would automatically be enlarged into. an absolute one by force of Section 14(1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored.
Thus where a property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken out of the ambit of sub!Section (2) and would be governed by Section 14(1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.
(5) The use of express terms like "property acquired by a female Hindu at a partition", "or in lieu of maintenance" "or arrears of maintenance" etc. in the Explanation to Section 14(1) clearly makes sub!Section (2) inapplicable to these categories which have been expressly excepted from the operation of sub!Section (2).
(6) The words "possessed by" used by the Legislature in Section 14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property even though the owner is not in actual or physical possession of the same: Thus, where a widow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of Section 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in the property. It is equally well settled that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser with! out any right or title.
(7) That the words "restricted estate" used in Section 14(2) are wider than limited interest as indicated in Section 14(1) and they include not only limited interest, but also. any other kind of limitation that may be placed on the transferee." ! ) D % #
Jupudy
4 Pardha Sarathy vs Pentapati Rama Krishna & Ors, 2016(2) SCC 56
# B # $ # +5 * 0 -$ +-($
6
A @ # ! # #
./ # #
% 37 + 34;< ! 6 ! !
!
#
# C/ 9.
3- % ' '# ( ' #
! # '+,-. #
! # ! #
!
%# @ % 34;< 6 # ) # #
!
6!( !37!$8
/0/ Ay 9 - E F-8 9 E F-8