Succession in the Case of Female Hindu (S. 14)

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Family Laws > The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 > Succession In the Case of a Female Hindu

Sections 14 to 16 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 specify the rules for the succession to the property of a Hindu female (succession of Hindu Female). Section 14 of the Act specifies general rules while Sections 15 and 16 describe and provide details for the rules laid down in section 14 of the Act.

Before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a female Hindu possessed two kinds of property: 1. Stridhana and 2. Hindu Women’s Estate
Over the Stridhana, she had full ownership and on her death, it developed on her heirs. Even as regards property in which she acquired Hindu Women’s Estate, her position was that of the owner but her power of alienation was limited and on her death, the property devolved on the next heir of the last full owner and not on her heir. The Hindu women’s limited estate is abolished and any property possessed by a female Hindu howsoever acquired is now held by her as absolute property and she has full power to deal with or dispose of it by will as she likes.

Section 14 of the Act, brought about fundamental and radical changes in the position and status of the Hindu females. The reason for including this provision was to ensure to women equality of status and of opportunity with men in relation to the title to and enjoyment of the property.

The provisions laid down in Section 14 of the Act are as follows:

Section 14: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.―

(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.―In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu 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, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under
a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the
terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such
property.

As per the explanation of Section 14(1), the word ‘Property’ includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu. The property may be of the following description as property acquired:

1. by inheritance or device; or
2. by a partition; or
3. in lieu of maintenance or arrears of inheritance; or
4. by a gift from any person whether a relative or not, before at or after her marriage; or
5. by her own skill or exertion; or
6. by purchase or by prescription; or
7. in any other manner whatsoever and
8. also, any property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the· commencement of this Act.

This section explicitly declares the law that a female holds all property in her possession whether acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act as an absolute owner and not as a limited owner. The rule applies to all property movable and immovable howsoever and whenever acquired by her, but subject to the qualification mentioned in Subsection (2).

Section 14 of the Act confers absolute ownership on a female Hindu i.e., the widow of the last male holder in respect of all properties left by a male Hindu which was in her or their possession on the date of the commencement of this Act, even though the husband or the male Hindu had died long before the commencement of the Act. Thus Section 14 of the Act is retrospective in effect. Under Section 14 the estate taken by a Hindu female under that provision is an absolute one and is not defeasible under any circumstances. The ambit of that estate cannot be cut by any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law.

According to S 14(2), the owner of a property is competent to confer a limited estate in favour of any Hindu female voluntarily and such limited estate would not mature into an absolute one. The reason is that the owner has a liberty to make a disposition of the property in accordance with his wishes. However, where even under a will, the property was given to the Hindu female in lieu of her pre-existing maintenance rights, such property notwithstanding the fact that it was bequeathed to her as a limited estate, would mature into an absolute ownership.

According to sub-section (2) the female Hindu does not become absolute owner of the property acquired by gift, will or any other instrument, decree or order of a Civil Court or an award if such gift, will or instrument, decree, order or award gives her only restricted right.

In Punithavalli v. Ramalingam, AIR 1970 SC 1730  the Supreme Court pointed out that the estate taken by a female Hindu under Subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act, is an absolute one and is not defeasible and its ambit cannot be cut down by any text or rule of Hindu law or by any presumption or any fiction under that law. Further Court held that the property possessed by a female Hindu on the date when the Act came into force whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof.

In Radha Rani Bhargava v. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 216 case, the Court observed that the position is that the Hindu female will no longer hold the property as a limited owner rather she is as an absolute owner. The reversioner’s rights are entirely abrogated by the Act with regard to the properties held by a Hindu female. The reversioner cannot have any locus standi to challenge the right of the Hindu female. However, a reversioner has a right to challenge a transfer of property made by a widow before the enforcement of this Act on the ground that the transfer was made by the widow without any legal necessity or lawful authority. The Court held that such an action would be maintainable even after the enforcement of the Act.

The decision of the above case can be summarized as follows:

1. It does not apply to women’s estate over which the Hindu female has no possession when the Act came into force. In such a case old Hindu law continues to apply. For the application of the present Act possession by a woman on the date when Act came into force is essential.
2. It has qualified retrospective application and converts only that estate into full estate over which she has possession when the Act came into force, the possession may be actual or constructive.

In S.C.Shukla v. Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 case, the Supreme Court recognized the principle of enlargement of limited estate right of the widow.

In Pratap Singh v Union of India AIR 1985 SC 1694 case, the Court held that Section 14 (1) is not violative of art 14 or 15(1) of the constitution. Nor is it incapable of implementation.

In Agasti Karuna v. cherukuri Krishnaiah, 2000 AIHC 84(AP) case, the Court held that where a widow was put in possession of the property by a deed executed by her husband giving her life estate in 1945, she was held to have become an absolute owner by virtue of section 14(1). Any alienation made by her, could not, therefore, be challenged by other heirs of the deceased husband.

In Gulab v. Vuhai, 2000 AIHC 913 (Bom) case, where a widow after the death of her husband was residing in one-third portion of the house with her brother-in-law, it was held that after the coming into force of the Act she became the absolute owner of the portion notwithstanding the fact that in the partition deed made in 1938 it was stated that she has only a right of residence therein. A registered gift deed executed by her in 1965 was consequently held to be valid.

In Mahesh Kumar Pate v. Mahesh Kumar vysa, 2000 AIHC 485 (MP) case, the Court held that a widow’s limited interest in the property of her deceased husband given to her in lieu of maintenance by way of compromise prior to the Act was held to have ripened into full ownership right after the Act.

In Bhikabai v. Mamtabai, AIR 2000, Bom 172 case, when the first wife died in 1923 before the death of the deceased husband, and two widows who were surviving in 1946 inherited as widow’s estate as joint tenants, they became absolute owners on the coming into force of the Act in 1956. On the death of one of them in 1974 without any heirs, the sole surviving widow would succeed to the entire property by survivorship. The daughter of the widow who died in 1923 was held not entitled to property which devolved on the surviving widow.

In A. K. Laxmanagounda v. A.K. Jayaram, AIR 2001 Kant 123 case, a sale deed was challenged by the sons on the ground that the mother had only a life interest in the property. The facts were that the deceased had bequeathed the property to the sons and life interest was created in favour of the widow in lira of maintenance. Her life interest blossomed into absolute ownership by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act. The widow sold the properties to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter and she sale deed executed by her was for valid consideration. The alienation was held to be legal and valid.

In Kuthala Kannu Ammal v. L Nadar, AIR 2001Mad 320 case,  where the widow was granted property during partition in recognition of her right of maintenance and subsequently the Act came into force, it was held that her limited right transformed into full ownership entitling her to execute a gift deed of the same to her grandson.

In Gulabrao Balwant Rao Shinde v. Chhabubai Balwant Rao Shinde, AIR 2003 SC 16 case, the dispute was between the children of two widows. The deceased had remarried after the death of the first wife. Children of the first wife filed a suit for recovery of half share of property left by their father whereas the respondents, children of the second wife, claimed ownership of entire property on the plea that their mother was the absolute owner of those properties. The high court held that the second wife possessed properties left by the husband in lieu of maintenance and after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, her right enlarged into full ownership. On appeal by the children of the first wife, the court held that in the absence of any pleadings and evidence to the effect that deceased had given the property to the widow in lieu of maintenance, the high court was wrong in holding that property in her possession became her absolute property. Moreover, the property in the hands of the deceased being ancestral, entire property could not have been given to the wife by way of maintenance.

In Gorachand Mukherjee v. Malabika Dutta, AIR 2002 Cat. 26 case, where a widow who had no pre-existing right of maintenance was given right of possession to the suit property till the death of her maternal uncle and aunt it was held that her life interest could not ripen into absolute title under section 14(1). The court held that the maternal uncle or aunt had no moral or legal obligation to maintain their niece and the right to possession of property given to her by them is not in lieu of maintenance and so it does not ripen into absolute right.

In P. Achyut Rao v. Union, AIR 1977 AP. 337  case, the Court held that the Sub-section (2) to Section 14 covers any kind of instruments besides the deed of gift, or will. Such other instruments may be a partition deed, a deed relating to maintenance, joint family settlement deed etc. Where any property is given to daughter-in-law for life interest through a will, she cannot validly transfer that property to another person for a period extending beyond her life time. The transferee will have interest in it till the life time of the transferor.

In Pentapali Subba Rao v. Jupudy Pradhasarthy, AIR 2007 (NOC) 220 (AP) case, where the husband settled the property in favour of his wife through the will, in lieu of her maintenance rights, such property would become her absolute estate on the commencement of the 1956 Act, in the provision of S14 (2) would not be attracted.

In 1987 the Supreme Court decided a landmark case in Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR 1987 S.C. 1493 case, in which the scope of Section 14(1) was considerably enlarged. The court observed that “the expression “possessed” has been used in the sense of having a right to the property or control over the property. The expression “any property” possessed by a Hindu female whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act” on an analysis yields to the following interpretation:

(1) Any property possessed by Hindu female acquired before the commencement of the Act will be held by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

(2) Any property possessed by a Hindu female acquired after the commencement of the Act will be held as a full owner thereof and not as the date of coming into operation of the Act is not the sine qua non for the acquisition of full ownership in the property. In fact, the intention of the legislature was to do away with the concept of limited ownership in respect of the property owned by a Hindu female altogether.

In Sulbha Gounduni v. Abhimanyer Gouda, AIR 1982 Orissa 71 case, the Court held that when the widow received only maintenance allowance and not in possession of any property in, lieu of maintenance Section 14 is not applicable.

In Karuppudayar v. Periathambi Udayar, AIR 1966 Mad 165 case, the Court held that widow divesting herself of possession by a settlement deed executed by her before the Act and dying after passing of the Act, then Section 14 of the Act, is not applicable.

Previous Topic: Succession in the Case of Female Hindu (Ss. 8 to 13)

Next Topic: General Rules of Succession in Case of Female Hindu

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Family Laws > The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 > Succession In the Case of a Female Hindu