9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter the plaintiff continued to live with them and was brought up treating him as their own son. Venkata Subbayya died on 14.1.1932 and before his death he executed a will bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his wife Smt. Thota Manikyamma for her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit property as her absolute property.. The defendant also executed a registered will on 26.10.69 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of one Ramisetti Koteswar Rao. The plaintiff in these circumstances claimed absolute right in the suit properties after the lifetime of the defendant and challenged the right of the defendant to execute any will in respect of the suit properties. The defendant took the plea that her husband died issueless and intestate and did not execute any will at any time. Neither she nor her husband brought up the plaintiff as their foster son nor did they educate him. The defendant had brought up Ramisetti Koteswar Rao, who is her nephew, from his ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by her husband was not valid and as such be cancelled and for possession and mesne profits and in the alternative she claimed for maintenance both past and future. In the said suit the parties entered into a compromise and a com- promise decree was passed on 5.3.1924, vide (exhibit A-1). Under the terms of said compromise the execution of the will was accepted and the same was made subject to the terms of the compromise decree. Under the compromise .decree it was agreed that Smt. Meenammal would enjoy items 1 2 of the properties mentioned in the will and also 50 cents of land during her lifetime. She would also have an enjoyment of the house site during her lifetime without any right of aliena- tion.' Dhanush Koti died unmarried in 1930 but during his lifetime he sold his interest in. the properties in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar. Ramalinga Reddiar died in 1962. On his death the petitioners before this Court being the sons and daughters of Ramalinga Reddiar Claimed to have become enti- tled for all the properties of Ramalinga Reddiar including the rights in the suit property. smt. Meenammal during her lifetime executed a settlement deed in favour of the re- spendents befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd and the shops. The second wife saras- wati preferred an appeal to the High Court against the above order of the executing court. A compromise was entered into between the parties in the High Court. According to the terms of compromise Alamolu was permitted to occupy the eastern house together with the two shops but the backyard portion was not given. Alamoler however remained in posses- sion of that portion as well, where some coconut trees were standing. Lateron Saraswati was removed from the guardian- ship of Siva Subramania Udayar, and natural father was appointed as his guardian. Alamolu died on 2.2.1966. The respondents before us are brother's grandsons of Alamolu. Alamolu settled the suit properties in favour of one Chan- drashekhar Udayar claiming title to the same in pursuance to a compromise in A.A.O. 567 of 1950. Ramayya Mudaliar another respondent before us initially took on lease the properties from Chandrashekhar and lateron purchased the eastern half of the building and backyard portion. Siva Subramania Udayar challenged these transactions on the grounds that Alamolu was given a right of residence only in the building and the same lasted till her lifetime and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree. order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property . The contention raised is that if a female Hindu acquires any property under a will which gives her a restricted estate in such property then provisions of sub-section (2) will over- ride, the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act which makes a female Hindu as full owner. In Badri Prashad v. Smt. Kanso Devi, [1970] 2 SCR 95 a Bench of three Judges considered the question in detail. In the above case a Hindu having self acquired properties, died in 1947 leaving five sons and a widow. On a dispute between the parties an Arbitrator was appointed in 1950. The Arbitrator gave an award and a decree was passed in terms of award. Under the award the widow was given widow's estate. It was held that the widow inherited the property under Section 3 (1) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and was in possession of it within the meaning of the word possession in Section 14(1) of the Act and when by an award her share was separetaed by metes and bounds, she also acquired the property within the meaning of that sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of the Act again came up for consideration in V. Tulsamrna Ors. v. V. Sesha Reddy (dead) by Lrs., [1977] 3 SCR 261. This case was also, decided by a Bench of three Judges. In this case the controversy now raised before us was considered in detail. All the earlier cases were considered including Badri Prasad v. Smt. Kanso Devi, (supra) and the ratio of this case was followed and approved in V. Tulsamma's case. Hon'ble Bhagwati, J. who wrote the leading judgment dealt with the question in detail and after applying the mind to the controversy decided the same in a well considered manner. V. Tulsamma's case again was dis- cussed in extenso and followed in Bai Vajia (dead) by L. Rs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai On., [1979] 3 SCR 291, by a Bench of three Judges. The same view has been consistently adopted in long series of cases of this Court and to mention a few of them are Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai Ors., [ 1987] 2 SCC 572; Gopal Singh Anr. v. Dill Ram (dead) by L.Rs. Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 47; Gulwant Kaur and Others v. Mohinder Singh and Others, [1987] 3 SCC 674 and Jaswant Kaur v. Major Harpal Singh, [ 1989] 3 SCC 572. A mention of all the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land, i.e. egalitarian socialist Indian Constitution. E .S. Shivaswamy lyer in his Revolution of Hindu Women, 1935 ,Edn. p. 64 stated that the ideals of the society as to womanhood includes not merely the relations of husband and wife or mother and children or the other intimate rela- tionship of family life, but also the notions we find about her capacity, her character, her claim to equality, independence and freedom for developing, her rights to personal ownership and control of property, to the choice of her vocation and other rights as well as duties as member of the society. Status and rights of Hindu woman fluctuated and swung like a pendulum with ups and downs from period to period starting from 4000 B.C. uptodate. However esteem for women remained constantly high in the society. In Vedic society woman enjoyed equal status economically, socially and culturally with men, vide p. 335,339 and 409 of The Position of Woman in Hindu Civilization, 1955 Edn. by Altakar. He stated that initiation to education upanayanam was performed in Vedic period to the girls as well as boys. Women studied the Vedas, even composed Vedic rhymes. They participated in public life freely. Vishvav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of status and opportunity. Efforts of social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Rai, Kandukuri Veeresalingam and a host of other enlightened made the British Rulers gradually to make statute law, given her right to separate residence and maintenance and a right over property of her husband or joint family for maintenance and a charge by a decree of court. Mahatma Gandhiji, the father of the nation, in Young India on October 17, 1929 had writ- ten thus: I am uncompromising in the matters of women's rights. In my opinion she should live under no legal disability, no suffering by men, we should treat the daughters and sons on the footing of perfect equality . Shri Ravindra Nath Tagore, the Noble laureate in his speech in 1913 re- printed in To the Women at page 18 stated that women is the champion of man, gifted with equal mental capacity. She has a right to participate in any minutest activity of men and she has equal right of freedom and liberty with him . The Constitution of India accords socio-economic and political justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of person with stated freedoms. Article 14 guarantees equality. In other words frowns upon di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mic justice, to relieve Hindu female from degradation, disabilities, disadvantages and restrictions under which Hindu females have been languishing over cen- turies and to integrate them in national and international life, Bharat Ratna Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, the first Law Minister and rounding father of the Constitution drafted Hindu Code Bill. The Hindu, Marriage Act, Adoption and Maintenance Act; Minority and Guardianship Act and Succes- sion Act 1956, for short 'the Act' became a part of this package. They ensue equal status and socio-economic justice to Hindu female. In a socialist democracy governed by rule of law, law as a social engineering should bring about transformation in-the social structure. Whenever a socio-economic legislation or the rule or instruments touching the implementation of welfare meas- ures arise for consideration, this historical evidence furnishes as the foundation and all other relevant material would be kept at the back of the court's mind. Section 14(1) of the Act declares that any property, movable or immovable, possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner irrespective of the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip accorded by sub-section (1) of s. 14 when this Court upheld the validity of s. 14(1) on the envil of Art; 15(3)what should be the message thus intended to convey? It would mean that the court would endeavour to give full effect to legislative and constitutional vision of socio-economic equality to female 'citizen by granting full ownership of property to a Hindu female. As a fact Art. 15(3) as a fore runner to common code does animate 'to 'make law to accord socio- economic equality to every female citizen of India, irre- spective of religion, race cast or region. In Seth Badri Preasad v. Smt. Kanso Devi, [.1969] 2 SCC :586 in an injunction suit against the respondent, the appellant ,contended that the respondent was given limited estate in a decree passed in an award and that, therefore, s. 14(2) applies. Negating that contention, this court held that sub-sec. (2) of s. 14 is more in the nature of a provi- so or an exception to sub-sec. (1). It can come into operation only if the acquisition is in any of the methods indicated in sUb sec. (2).without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu who is in possession of the property. I Section 14(1) remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e property as full owner. Bhagwati J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Gupta, J. while pointing out the faulty drafting of s. 14, held that s. 14(1) seeks to do away with the traditional limitation of her power of disposition which were regarded under the Hindu law as inherent all her estate. The words possessed of means as the state of owning or having in one's hand or power which need not be actual or physical possession or personal occupation of the property by the Hindu female. It may be actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law. Sub-section (1) of s. 14cannot be interpreted in a manner which would deprive the Hindu woman of the protection sought to be given to her by sub- section (1). The social purpose of the law-would be frustrated and reformist zeal underlying the statutory provison would be chilled. It was not the intention of the legislature in enacting sub-section (2) which must be construed as an exception or a proviso to sub-section (1). No provision should be construed in isolation and be read in the context so as to . make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Sub-section (2) must be read in the context of sub-section (1) of s. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat She was possessed of the property at the point of time when her title was called into question. The 'question then was whether she became full owner? In that case the widow as a limited owner sold the property but later on re- purchased the self same property and was in possession at the date when the question of holding the property and ' the nature of the right held by her had arisen. It was held that she was in possession as limited owner and after the Act she became full owner, and not limited owner of the property. It was further held that' the legislative intent is abundantly 'loud and clear. To erase the injustice .and remove the legal shackles by abolishing the concept of limited estate, or the women's or widow's estate once and for all. To obviate hair-splitting, the legislature 'has made it abundantly clear that whatever be the property possessed by a Hindu female, it will 'be, Of her absolute ownership and not of limited ownership, notwithstanding the position obtaining under the traditional Hindu law. In Gulwant Kaur Anr. v. Mohinder Singh Anr., [1987] 3 SCR 576 construing a letter written by the husband giving the property for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estate by gift deed of 1954 to the appellant, one of her daughters. The widow died in 1968.The appellant filed a suit for injunction, based on gift deed, against the respondent, another Sister claiming exclusive right, title and interest in the property and also pleaded adverse possession. The respondent filed a cross suit for partition into two shares and claimed half share pleading that their mother was not in possession of property on the date when the Act came into force. The appellant. acquired only limited ownership of their mother and on her death as a reversioner of her father she was entitled to partition. The High Court ultimately upheld the respondent's contention and held' that the widow did not acquire absolute estate under s. 14(1). Being a limited owner, what was conveyed by her to the appellant was only a limited estate and the appellant would not get the benefit of full ownership as she herself was not the limited owner under-sec. 14(1). On demise of the .mother as reversioner, the respondent was entitled to file the. suit for partition. The appellant did not acquire title by adverse possession as she was a co-owner and there was no right. Therefore, sub- s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , order, decree or an award of the civil court or in any of the forms' known to law was executed in recognition thereof or entitled under the existing law. If the finding is positive her limited estate, though created with restrictive covenants in instrument or an omission to expressly so mentioned in full par- ticulars thereof in the instrument in that regard are of little consequence. Her limited estate gets blossomed into full ownership under-sec. 14(1) with a right to bequeath, gift over, alienation or to deal in any manner. recognised by law. If on the other hand the Hindu female acquires for the first time the tittle therein as a grant with restric- tive estate under the instrument with no pre-existing title or right, sub-section (2) of s. '14 gets attracted and the restrictive. covenants. contained in the instrument would bind her. She remains-to be a limited owner in terms there- of. The subsequent alienee or transferee acquires no higher right thereunder than the legatee etc. The reversioner to the last male holder is not bound by such transfer and is entitled to succeed the estate, on her demise, in terms of the instrument. It is too late in the 'day to take r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, admittedly, being a widow of the testator who. under Shastric law, was obligated to provide maintenance to his wife, and it being personal obligation, the property bequeathed was in lieu of maintenance for her life. She was in enjoyment of the property and the beneficial interest therein stood vested in her. As per existing law as in 1932 the widow as a legatee was entitled to widow's estate and she remained in possession on the date of the Act came into force and was in enjoyment of the income derived therefrom for her life. No one had a right to inter- dict it. The restrictive covenant, therefore, does not stand an impediment to s. 14(1) to have full play to extinguish the same and enlarge the limited estate of widow into an absolute ownership. The restrictions contained in the will, though falls both under sub-sec. (2) as well as sub-sec. (1), of s. 14, the right to maintenance being a pre-existing right over property red ad rem s. 14(1) would apply. The testamentary succession with a restrictive conditions in the will was obliterated. She became an absolute owner on or after June 17, 1956. Accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that, though the will created a restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
