Whether Hindu woman who is in illegal possession of property without title can obtain absolute ownership as per S 14(1) of Hindu succession Act?

 It is true that the appellant was in possession of
Eran Gowda's properties but that fact alone is not
sufficient to attract the operation of Section 14. The

property possessed by a female Hindu, as
contemplated in the section, is clearly property to
which she has acquired some kind of title whether
before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be
noticed that the Explanation to Section 14(1) sets out
the various modes of acquisition of the property by a
female Hindu and indicates that the section applies
only to property to which the female Hindu has
acquired some kind of title, however restricted the
nature of her interest may be. The words “as full owner
thereof and not as a limited owner” as given in the last
portion of subsection
(1) of Section 14 clearly suggest
that the legislature intended that the limited ownership
of a Hindu female should be changed into full
ownership. In other words, Section 14(1) of the Act
contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence
of this provision, would have been limited owner of the
property, will now become full owner of the same by
virtue of this section. The object of the section is to
extinguish the estate called limited estate or “widow's
estate” in Hindu law and to make a Hindu woman, who
under the old law would have been only a limited
owner, a full owner of the property with all powers of
disposition and to make the estate heritable by her
own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last
male holder. The Explanation to subsection
(1) of
Section 14 defines the word “property” as including
“both movable and immovable property acquired by a
female Hindu by inheritance or devise …”. Subsection
(2) of Section 14 also refers to acquisition of property.
It is true that the Explanation has not given any
exhaustive connotation of the word “property” but the
word “acquired” used in the Explanation and also in
subsection
(2) of Section 14 clearly indicates that the
object of the section is to make a Hindu female a full
owner of the property which she has already acquired
or which she acquires after the enforcement of the Act.
It does not in any way confer a title on the female
Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige of
title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be
interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of
female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere
trespasser. In other words, the provision of Section
14(1) of the Act cannot be attracted in the case of a

Hindu female who is in possession of the property of
the last male holder on the date of the commencement
of the Act when she is only a trespasser without any
right to property.
(emphasis supplied)

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 226 OF 2010

AJIT KAUR @ SURJIT KAUR  Vs DARSHAN SINGH

Rastogi, J.
Dated:April 04, 2019
Citation: 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 470

Print Page

Whether wife will get absolute right in property if his husband was having only life interest in said property?

In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the property in the hands of Chhimli came in lieu of maintenance or on account of arrears of maintenance. The property in her hands came as a result of she being a successor of Sheo Lal. Sheo Lal did not possess any property. He had only life interest in the property which did not enlarge into a full right because Section 14(1) does not recognize the pre-existing right of a Hindu male. Smt. Chhimli could not have acquired a better right than her husband had in the property in dispute. Right of Sheo Lal, as also Smt. Chhimli, flows from the decree. Therefore, her right would not mature into full-fledged ownership by virtue of Section 14(1). She has acquired the right by virtue of the compromise decree for the first time. Therefore, Section 14(2) would apply to the instant case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7919 of 2011

Decided On: 08.05.2018

 Basanti Devi (dead)  Vs. Rati Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 16 SCC 608

Print Page

Whether property received by widowed daughter from her father in lieu of maintenance will become her absolute property?

Hindu Law- Hindu Succession Act, 1956- Sec. 14(1)- Moral obligation,

when becomes legal obligation- Discussed

In this matter, argument of the counsel for the petitioner that interest of

Smt. Parag Devi under gift deed dated 17.07.1956 was due to her pre-existing

right of maintenance as such it was enlarged under Section 14(1) of Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 as held by Supreme Court in Jupudy Pardha Sarathy Vs.

Pentapati Rama Krishna and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2007

decided on 6.11.2015, is also liable to be accepted. Supreme Court in

Laxmappa Vs. Balawa Kom Tirkappa Chavdi (Smt), (1996) 5 SCC 458, held

that the position of the married daughter is somewhat different. It is 

acknowledged that if the daughter is unable to obtain maintenance from her

husband, or, after his death, from his family, her father, if he has got separate

property of his own, is under a moral, though not a legal, obligation to maintain

her. The High Court has concluded that it was clear that the father was under an

obligation to maintain the plaintiff-respondent. Seemingly, the High Court in

doing so was conscious of the declaration made in the gift deed in which she

was described as a destitute and unable to maintain herself. In that way, the

father may not have had a legal obligation to maintain her but all the same there

existed a moral obligation. And if in acknowledgment of that moral obligation

the father had transferred property to his daughter then it is an obligation wellfructified.

In other words, a moral obligation even though not enforceable under

the law, would by acknowledgment, bring it to the level of a legal obligation,

for it would be perfectly legitimate for the father to treat himself obliged out of

love and affection to maintain his destitute daughter, even impinging to a

reasonable extent on his ancestral property. It is duly acknowledged in Hindu

law that the Karta of the family has in some circumstances, power to alienate

ancestral property to meet an obligation of the kind. Court would be rather

construe the said paragraph more liberally in the modern context having regard

to the state of law which has been brought about in the succeeding years.

Therefore, in court‟s view, the High Court was within its right to come to the

conclusion that there was an obligation on the part of the father to maintain his

destitute widowed daughter. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)

Consolidation No. 738 of 2006

Decided On: 26.02.2016

Prem Kali Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sitapur and Ors.

Coram:Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

Print Page

Whether widow inheriting property of her deceased husband will be divested of said property after her remarriage?

The fact that in the year 1962 the plaintiff/respondent remarried would not divest her of her rights vested in her by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In support of this proposition the learned advocate for the respondent Shri Sangeet, advocate relied upon the case of Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs. and others vs Cherotte Bharathi and others [2008 AIR SCW 1525]. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly laid down that widow inheriting property of her husband on his death would become absolute owner and subsequent remarriage would not divest her of property in view of Sections 24 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is also observed that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides provisions of Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856.

Bombay High Court

Baliram Atmaram Dhake vs Rahubai @ Saraswatibai on 7 January, 2009

Bench: P. R. Borkar

Print Page