9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the gift deed executed by a Hindu widow. 2. Nature of right and title of the female donee under the Hindu Succession Act. 3. Adverse possession and its effect on reversioners' rights. Summary: 1. Validity of the Gift Deed Executed by a Hindu Widow: The litigation between two sisters involved cross-suits: one for a permanent injunction based on a 1954 gift deed executed by their mother, a Hindu widow, and another for declaration and partition challenging the validity of the gift deed. The key issue was whether a Hindu widow could alienate the entire estate inherited from her husband by gift to one of the female reversioners before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court found the gift deed duly executed but ruled the widow incompetent to alienate the estate permanently under Hindu Law. The appellate court affirmed this, stating adverse possession against the widow is not adverse against reversioners. 2. Nature of Right and Title of the Female Donee Under the Hindu Succession Act: The appellant claimed absolute ownership u/s 14 of the Act. The court examined whether the female donee of a Hindu widow's estate could become an absolute owner under the Act. It reviewed conflicting judgments from various High Courts. The Delhi High Court held that a female donee became an absolute owner u/s 14, while other High Courts (Patna, Calcutta, Punjab, Madras, and Andhra Pradesh) disagreed, stating that rights of a female donee under Hindu Law did not get enlarged under the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that the Act intended to benefit only those female Hindus who were limited owners before the Act came into force. Therefore, a female donee from a Hindu widow did not become a limited owner and could not claim absolute ownership under the Act. 3. Adverse Possession and Its Effect on Reversioners' Rights: The High Court's treatment of adverse possession as a question of fact was challenged. The Supreme Court held that possession under an invalid gift deed could not constitute adverse possession against reversioners during the lifetime of the widow. The reversioners could wait until the widow's death to claim the property. Consequently, the appellant could not acquire any right by adverse possession against the reversioners during her mother's lifetime. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant did not acquire absolute ownership under the Hindu Succession Act and could not claim rights through adverse possession against reversioners. The court expressed gratitude to the assisting advocates.
|
