9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the gift made by the widow in 1933. 2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 3. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 4. Determination of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act vs. Customary Law. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the gift made by the widow in 1933: The property in dispute originally belonged to Wadhawa Singh, the father of the respondent. Upon his death in 1933, his widow inherited the estate and subsequently made a gift of the property to her daughter, the respondent, in April 1933. The appellants, as reversioners to Wadhawa Singh's estate, challenged this gift, and the suit was decreed in their favor, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The court noted that Wadhawa Singh's widow had no right to make a gift of the property she inherited from her husband in 1933. This decree bound the respondent, who was a party to that suit. 2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act: The Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17-6-1956. The widow made another gift of the same lands to the respondent after this Act came into force, but she died in 1963. The appellants filed a suit for possession of the lands, alleging that the second gift was void. The Trial Court decreed their suit, but the respondent succeeded on appeal in the first Appellate Court and the High Court. The court clarified that because the widow had already made the gift in 1933, she was not in possession of the property inherited from her husband and thus did not become a full owner under Section 14. Therefore, the subsequent gift made by her was of no effect. The court stated, "unless the limited owner is in possession of the property section 14 does not apply," a point settled by previous decisions of the court. 3. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act: The court examined the effect of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Punjab High Court had previously held that when a widow dies after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the next heir to her husband is determined by the law prevailing at the widow's death, not at the time of her husband's death. This meant the daughter succeeded in preference to the reversioners. Conversely, the Mysore High Court held that succession would be governed by the Hindu Law in force when the last male holder died. The court referred to the Privy Council's decision in Moniram Kolita v. Keri Kaliteni, which established that succession opens to the heirs of the husband upon the termination of the widow's estate. The court concluded that "succession opens on the death of the limited owner, and the law then in force would govern the succession." Thus, succession to Wadhawa Singh's estate opened when his widow died in 1963, and it should be decided based on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 4. Determination of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act vs. Customary Law: The court addressed the argument that under the Customary Law of Punjab, a daughter was not entitled to succeed to the ancestral property of the father in preference to the reversioners. The court acknowledged the authoritative nature of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, which stated that a daughter only succeeds to her father's ancestral property in the absence of male heirs or near male collaterals. However, the court held that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act applied, not the Customary Law. The court emphasized that the Hindu Succession Act should have prospective application, aligning with the Privy Council's interpretation that the law in force at the time of the limited owner's death governs the succession. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act applied, making the respondent the rightful heir. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court's decision underscored the principle that the law in force at the time of the limited owner's death governs succession, rather than the law at the time of the last male holder's death.
|
