Case Law Details
Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (Dead) Thr Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (Dead) Thr Lrs. & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Facts- The original plaintiff Daulalji filed the suit seeking possession of the suit property alongwith the mesne profits, against the original defendant Bhonri Devi, widow of Late Shri Dhannalalji and against the other defendants, who were the tenants in the suit property.
The plaintiff Daulalji claimed that after the death of Harinarayanji, he being the only male member in the family as well as the legatee under the Will of Harinarayanji, had become the sole owner of the suit property and, therefore, was entitled to recover the 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 written statement contending that she being the wife of Dhannalalji and daughter-in-law of Ganeshnarayanji, and thus, was in possession of the suit property as an owner and was maintaining herself from the income derived from the suit property. It was also contended that the limited right vested in her favour in the suit property, had enlarged into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into force on 17.06.1956. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Later, the High Court held that after the death of Shri Ganeshnarayanji 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. The matter was thus taken to the Apex Court mainly contenting that whether Bhonri Devi had become an absolute owner after section 14(1) of the Act of 1956 came into force?
Conclusion- Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the Shastric Hindu Law, long before the passing of the 1937 and the 1946 Acts. Where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance. The word “possessed by” and “acquired” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest amplitude and include the state of owning a property. It is by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, that the Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged into an absolute right, when such property is possessed by her whether acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
