Property Given In Lieu Of Maintenance To Hindu Woman Solidifies Into Absolute Ownership U/S 14(1) Hindu Succession Act: SC
The Supreme Court held that a property given to a Hindu woman in lieu of maintenance would solidify into absolute ownership by action of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that held that if a property is given to a widow in recognition of her Sastric right to maintenance or arrears of maintenance, then that would be her absolute property after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) came into force.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held, “Property given in lieu of maintenance would solidify into absolute ownership by action of Section 14(1) of HSA, 1956. In other words, the right of maintenance on its own is apposite for such property to transfer into her sole, unquestionable, and absolute right. The partition deed of 1933, it has been held, is clear that 3.55 Cents of land would be enjoyed by Smt. Veerabhadramma as a life interest and thereafter would devolve upon the two lines of succession, i.e., the sons of late Kallakuri Swami through his first wife and also his second wife.”
Senior Advocate M Surender Rao represented the Appellants, while Advocate M Srinivas R Rao appeared for the Respondents.
The case stems from the succession rights of stepbrothers over the scheduled property described in the partition deed. After the death of their mother, the Appellants submitted that her rights were enlarged under Section 14(1) of the HSA, granting her absolute ownership of the property.
The Trial Court held that if a Hindu female acquires property at the first instance without a pre-existing right under the partition deed, then only Section 14(2) of the HSA would be attracted.
Similarly, the High Court affirmed that in a family partition between father and sons, where the mother, wife or daughter or widow of predeceased son of Karta/manager of the family had been given property towards maintenance - without anything else - then it shall be considered in the light of the language of document conferring such right.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court reiterated its decision in Raghubar Singh v. Gulab Singh (1998), wherein it was held, “The right to maintenance of the Hindu widow, as a preexisting right, was thus recognised by the two statutes referred to above but it was not created for the first time by any of those statutes. Her right to maintenance existed under the Shastric Hindu law long before statutory enactments came into force.”
The Bench pointed out that the right of maintenance was sufficient for the property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of the HSA and the same was reiterated in Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987), “The very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance.”
Consequently, the Court held, “The findings of the Courts below, as facts are clear that absolute rights extended only to 2.09 Cents. The record does not bring forth any reason for this Court to take a different view. The Shastric right of maintenance given statutory recognition by two pre-constitutional legislations, as noted by V. Tulsamma (supra) and Raghubar Singh (supra), stands satisfied thereby.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 883)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate M Surender Rao; AOR Krishna Kumar Singh and G. Madhavi; Advocates R Santhana Krishnan and Aditya Kumar Archiya
Respondents: Advocates M Srinivas R Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P and Saswat Adhyapak; AOR Sudha Gupta and P. Vinay Kumar
