CASE TITLE:
Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) Vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D)
DATE OF ORDER:
18TH MAY,2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI & BELA M. TRIVEDI
PARTIES:
PETITIONERS: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D)
RESPONDENT: Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D)
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court observed that a widow's settled exclusive possession of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUf) property would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for the realisation of her pre-existing right of maintenance.
BRIEF FACTS
- The plaintiff Daulalji filed the suit against the defendant Bhonri Devi, widow of Late Shri Dhannalalji, and the other defendants, who were tenants in the suit property, seeking possession of the suit property as well as the mesne profits.
- The plaintiff Daulalji claimed that after Harinarayanji died, he became the sole owner of the suit property as the only male member of the family as well as the legatee under Harinarayanji's Will and was thus entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the defendant No.1 Bhonri Devi, who had no legal right or interest in the suit property.
- The defendant filed a written statement contending that as the wife of Dhannalalji and the daughter-in-law of Ganeshnarayanji, she was in possession of the suit property as an owner and was supporting herself from the suit property's income.
- It was also argued that the limited right she had in the suit property had been expanded into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which went into effect on June 17, 1956. The Trial Court decided the case.
- Later, in allowing the appeal, the High Court held that, following Shri Ganeshnarayanji's death in 1938, a limited right in the suit property was created in favour of Bhonri Devi, and that the said Bhonri Devi had a right of maintenance even under the old Shastric Law, which had fructified into a full right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether Bhonri Devi became an absolute owner upon the passage of the Act of 1956?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The Court noted Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto, noting that "in order to become a full owner and not a limited owner of a property by virtue of Section 14(1), a female Hindu must have been in possession of the property before or after the commencement of the Act of 1956, and it must have been acquired by her by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance, or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not before, during, or after her marriage, or through her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or prescription, or in any other way, or any such property must have been held by her as stridhan immediately before the commencement of the Act."
CONCLUSION
The Court noted that Bhonri devi was in possession of the suit house before and after the death of Harinarayanji in 1953 and had continued to remain in possession thereafter, collecting rent from tenants who had been in occupation of part of the suit premises since 1955, until the plaintiff Daulalji filed the suit in 1965. The court stated that her pre-existing right to maintenance, combined with her settled legal possession of the property, would be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a vestige of right or claim in the property, even if no document was executed or specific charge was created in her favour recognising her right to maintenance in the property.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
