Will and wife's right

Wife would be absolute owner of the Property left by her husband and she has every right to transfer the property through gift,sale and execute will as per her wish.In case wife dies intestate then the property will be distributed as per will of husband .It is immaterial that will of husband is not registered.Will requires no registration and no stamp duty.It can be even executed on plan paper. Will requires signature of testator and two witnesses.

Originally posted by : Unnathi Gupta
	The property of man devolves upon his wife after his death and after wife death, property to be distributed as per will. What are the rights if wife , can she sell, or can write his will ? Can she decide after his death who shall get what. Please note the will is not registered.

1. IF Husband had executed registered /unregistered WILL in favor of Wife for "Life Time Usage" of his property, THEN Wife is not entitled to Sell /Gift /Will /Donate /Whatever....

2. The above means that the actual WILL beneficiary shall inherit Father's property with condition that said Wife shall have permanent right to live in her Husband's house till her life time.  This also means that the actual Will beneficiary CANNOT Sell /Gift /Donate /whatever.... this property till said Wife is alive.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

Yes.  As per the Will (registration of Will is optional registration), after the death of the husband, it goes to the wife but she has no right to transfer the property in any way.  She can only enjoy the property till her death and after her, the property shall be distributed.

She is absolute owner of the self acquired (bequeathed by deceased husband) and can dispose it as she desire.

In my understanding, the wife's right to transfer depends upon the terms of the Will. If her rights are limited i. e. only a lifetime interest she would not be entitled to effect any transfer by way of sale, Will etc.

Will can not be conditional.

With due respect to Dr. Vashista, it is stated that a Will could be conditional. The testator can make a limited bequest of 'life interest' to one of the legatees and subsequently, absolute interest to another legatee. It is been held by the Supreme Court in  Ranvir Dewan versus Rashmi Khanna & Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 1]:

"................ it is a settled principle of law that the “life interest” means an interest which determines on the termination of life. It is incapable of being transferred by such person to others being personal in nature. Such person, therefore, could enjoy the “life interest” only during his/her lifetime which is extinguished on his/her death" 

It has been explained that a life interest is a “restricted estate" which automatically ends upon the death of the life interest holder. It was inter-alia held that when a Hindu male validly disposes off his property by providing for a limited estate to his heir, i.e. to his wife, the wife or widow has to take it as a limited right. This limited right of life interest is not enlarged even by virtue of certain provisions under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. What the Supreme Court meant is that conferment of a limited estate which is otherwise valid in law is reinforced by this Act. To clarify, the Supreme Court reinforces the view that a limited interest is incapable of being transferred by the life interest holder to others, being personal in nature, and ultimately it vests in the heirs of the testators absolutely and completely and, therefore, the heirs on account of being the ultimate beneficiaries were permitted to get their names mutated in the municipal records as absolute owners.

The Judgment substantially relies on para   13, 14 and 15 of the Judgment in Sadhu Singh vs. Gurudwara Sahib Narike & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 75: 

“13. An owner of property has normally the right to deal with that property including the right to devise or bequeath the property. He could thus dispose it of by a testament. Section 30 of the Act, not only does not curtail or affect this right, it actually reaffirms that right. Thus, a Hindu male could testamentarily dispose of his property. When he does that, a succession under the Act stands excluded and the property passes to the testamentary heirs. Hence, when a male Hindu executes a will bequeathing the properties, the legatees take it subject to the terms of the will unless of course, any stipulation therein is found invalid. Therefore, there is nothing in the Act which affects the right of a male Hindu to dispose of his property by providing only a life estate or limited estate for his widow. The Act does not stand in the way of his separate properties being dealt with by him as he deems fit. His will hence could not be challenged as being hit by the Act.

"14. When he thus validly disposes of his property by providing for a limited estate to his heir, the wife, the wife or widow has to take it as the estate falls. This restriction on her right so provided, is really respected by the Act. It provides in Section 14(2) of the Act, that in such a case, the widow is bound by the limitation on her right and she cannot claim any higher right by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. In other words, conferment of a limited estate which is otherwise valid in law is reinforced by this Act by the introduction of Section 14(2) of the Act and excluding the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, even if that provision is held to be attracted in the case of a succession under the Act. Invocation of Section 14(1) of the Act in the case of a testamentary disposition 21 taking effect after the Act, would make Sections 30 and 14(2) redundant or otiose. It will also make redundant, the expression “property possessed by a female Hindu” occurring in Section 14(1) of the Act. An interpretation that leads to such a result cannot certainly be accepted. Surely, there is nothing in the Act compelling such an interpretation. Sections 14 and 30 both have play. Section 14(1) applies in a case where the female had received the property prior to the Act being entitled to it as a matter of right, even if the right be to a limited estate under the Mitakshara law or the right to maintenance.

"15. Dealing with the legal position established by the decisions in Tulasamma1 and Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai13 the position regarding the application of Section 14(2) of the Act is summed up in Mayne on Hindu Law thus:

“Sub-section (2) of Section 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts, etc., which create independent and new title in favour of females for the first time and has no application where the instruments concerned merely seek to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. The creation of a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) will not operate in such a case. Where property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition the instrument is taken out of the ambit of sub-section (2) and would be  governed by Section 14(1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.”(See p. 1172 of the 15th Edn.)”