1966 (8) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Babuji separated from the coparcenary in 1934.
2. The application of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937.
3. The nature of the widow's interest under the Act.
4. The right of the widow to claim partition.
5. The devolution of the widow's interest upon her death.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Babuji separated from the coparcenary in 1934:
The Trial Court found that the plea of Babuji's separation from the coparcenary in 1934 was not established. This finding was not challenged in the appeal before the High Court. Consequently, it was determined that Babuji did not separate from the other coparceners before his death in 1937.

2. The application of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937:
On the death of Babuji in 1937, his widow, Chando Kuer, acquired the same interest in the coparcenary property as Babuji had, by virtue of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (Act 18 of 1937). This Act was further extended to include agricultural lands in Bihar by Bihar Act 6 of 1942, with retrospective effect from April 14, 1937. The Act fundamentally altered the rights of widows in coparcenary property governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.

3. The nature of the widow's interest under the Act:
The Act conferred upon the widow the same interest in the coparcenary property that her husband had, which is known as a Hindu woman's estate. This interest is limited and subject to restrictions on alienation, but it includes the right to claim partition. The widow's interest does not arise by inheritance or survivorship but by statutory substitution.

4. The right of the widow to claim partition:
The widow, Chando Kuer, had the same right to claim partition as a male coparcener. Upon instituting a suit for partition, her interest in the coparcenary property became defined. This right to claim partition was upheld as not merely a severance of status but an entitlement to a defined share in the property. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contention that the widow's right to partition required division by metes and bounds followed by exclusive possession.

5. The devolution of the widow's interest upon her death:
Upon the death of Chando Kuer, her defined interest in the coparcenary property devolved upon her daughters, the nearest heirs of her husband, Babuji. The Supreme Court clarified that the right of the surviving coparceners to take the widow's interest by survivorship was extinguished once her interest was defined by her demand for partition. The interest vested in her did not revert to the coparcenary upon her death but instead devolved upon her husband's heirs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for possession of a share in the property, affirming that Chando Kuer's interest in the coparcenary property, defined by her suit for partition, devolved upon her daughters upon her death. The appeal was dismissed with costs.