“Such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.”
Supreme Court: In a civil appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench decision, which upheld the Single Judge’s affirmation of a Civil Court’s ruling on a widow’s right to maintenance from the suit property of a Hindu family, the Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal and overturned the previous decisions.
The Bench reaffirmed that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, a Hindu woman must not only possess the property but also have acquired it to establish full ownership of the undivided joint family estate.
Factual Background
The suit property was owned by A, who had two sons, M1 and M2. M2 was married to the original petitioner (widow). After her husband’s death, the widow claimed to have adopted the plaintiff-son on 12-06-1959, almost 30 years later. M1’s son executed a will for the entire unpartitioned estate in favor of his son (the current appellant). M1’s son died in 1954, and the suit property passed to the appellant under the will.
The widow filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit property, arguing it was joint Hindu family property and that the will was invalid. The Civil Court dismissed her suit on 21-05-1959 but recognized her right to maintenance from the property. The appellant challenged this decision, and the Senior Civil Judge overturned the Civil Court’s ruling on 09-02-1968.
The widow then appealed to the Single Judge of the High Court. After her death, her legal heir (plaintiff-son) continued the appeal. The Single Judge restored the Civil Court’s judgment regarding her right to maintenance. The plaintiff-son subsequently filed a Revenue Suit for partition of the property, claiming his mother was entitled to a share under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Division Bench’s impugned judgment dated 02-11-2017 was the subject of the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the widow’s claim to title and possession of the suit property had been previously denied, and it was undisputed that she was never in possession of the property. She never challenged the 21-05-1959 judgment, which only entitled her to maintenance. The Court referenced Munni Devi v. Rajendra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 643, where a widow who had resided in the suit property and collected rents was deemed to have acquired the property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, thereby holding it as the full owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Regarding the question that whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff-son being the legal heir of widow-wife was entitled to institute a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property, the Court referred to Ram Vishal v. Jagan Nath, (2004) 9 SCC 302, wherein, it was held that, a pre-existing right is a sine qua non for conferment of a full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property. Hence, the Court reiterated that, for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. Thus, the Court held that since, the widow-wife was never in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act could not be maintained by her plaintiff-son by virtue of inheritance.