Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GURDIP SINGH AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AMAR SINGH AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1991
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 385 1991 SCC (2) 8
JT 1991 (1) 522 1991 SCALE (1)243
ACT:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 14-Enlargement of
widow’s estate-Property gifted in lieu of maintenance-
Whether the limited estate enlarged into an absolute estate.
HEADNOTE:
The grandfather of the appellants and respondents
had two wives. The first wife and her only son died
during his life time. The pre-deceased son left behind
four sons and a daughter. In 1947, the grand-father
made three oral gifts of certain properties in favour of
his second wife, in lieu of maintenance. Later, the
grandmother gifted some of these properties to two step
grandsons. The gift was challenged by the other two
grandsons. The lower court held that she had the
absolute estate in the properties after the possing of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In Second Appeal, the High
Court held that she derived only a limited estate
inasmuch as the gift in her favour would fall directly
under section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and
as such her limited estate would not stand enlarged
into an absolute estate. This appeal is against the said
judgment of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the donee had the right
of maintenance and the gift was explicitly in lieu of
maintenance. It was a case of her acquiring any new
property by virtue of the gift but it was a case of her
right of maintenance being given to her by way of a gift.
It was a property acquired by gift in lieu of maintenance.
The acquisition made on 26th April, 1947 having been prior
to the Hindu Succession Act, and she having acquired the
property by way of gift in lieu of her antecedent right to
maintenance, it would fail under sub-section (1) and not
under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and she derived absolute estate in the
properties. [387E-F]
Bai Vajia (Dead) by Lrs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors.
[1979] 3 SCR 291; Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v. Mohinder Singh &
Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 674; Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal v.
Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai & Anr., [1988] 1 SCC
99; Jaswant Kaur V. Major
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
386
Harpal Singh, [1989] 3 SCC 572; relied on.
Mst. Karmi v. Amru & Ors., [1972] 4 SCC 86; Kothi
Satyanarayana v. Galla Sithayya & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 760;
distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2877 of
1977.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 19.8.1977 of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 334 of 1975.
R. Bana for the Appellants.
Harbans Lal and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Kehar Singh had two wives, Basant Kaur and Sahib Devi.
Sahib Devi died during Kehar Singh’s life time. Sahib
Devi’s son was Niranjan Singh who also died during Kehar
Singh’s life time. Niranjan Singh had four sons and one
daughter. On 26th April, 1947 Kehar Singh in lieu of
maintenance made three oral gifts of properties situated in
three different villages in favour of his wife Basant Kaur.
The question which arose for consideration before the lower
Court was whether Basant Kaur got an absolute estate in the
gifted properties as result of the passing of the Hindu
Succession Act. In regard to the land in village Ballowal
the lower Courts have held that she got an absolute estate.
The High Court was concerned in the second Appeal with the
lands in village Dhaipai and Chominda, and it held the gift
having been without any power of alienation would fall under
Section 14(2).
The Exhibit D- I was the report of the Patwari in
connection with the mutation proceedings and it said:
"Today Kehar Singh owner of Khewat came alongwith
Narain Singh Lambardar and stated that he had on
14th April, 1947, made an oral gift of land-half
of total land measuring 8 bighas Pukhta, 3
Biswas and 3 Biswani, which is 4 Bighas Pukhta, 12
Biswas and 1 Biswani as detailed in favour of his
wife Mst. Basant Kaur, and given possession of
the same. I had only one son who is dead and he
had four sons and no other male issue. There is
no certainty of life. She served me. Lambardar
attests so the mutation is entered."
387
On 30th July, 1947, the Assistant Collector made the
following orders:
"In the gathering, Kehar Singh donor and
Basant Kaur donee, identified by Kishan Singh
Lambardar are present. The change of possession
of this case is admitted and verified by the
donor and the donee. Donor stated that he has
got no son. I had got two wives. My grand sons,
it is possible may not gift maintenance to my
wife. With this view I make the gift. Gift is
for maintenance. After gift there would be no
powers of mortgage or sale. After the death
of Basant Kaur Malkiat Singh, Amar
Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Mohan Singh, children
would be heirs. This gift is of 1/2 share or
Khasra No.4658/2468 measuring 4 Bighas, 12
Biswas 1 Biswani, Khewat Nos. 324 to 326,
which is attested in favour of Mst. Basant Kaur
donee."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
The High Court on interpretation of the Assistant
Collector’s report came into conclusion that Basant Kaur
derived only a limited estate inasmuch as such a gift,
according to the high Court, would fall directly under-
section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and as such
the limited estate of Basant Kaur would not stand
enlarged into an absolute estate. The challenge was to the
gift made by Basant Kaur in favour of two step grand
sons ignoring the other two.
There is no doubt that Basant Kaur had the right of
maintenance and the gift was explicitly in lieu of
maintenance. As such we are of the view that it was not a
case of her acquiring any new property by virtue of the
gift but it was a case of her right of maintenance being
given to her by way of a gift. It was a property acquired
by gift in lieu of maintenance. This acquisition on 26th
April, 1947 having-been prior to the Hindu Succession
Act, we are of the view that she having acquired this
property by way of gift in lieu of her antecedent right
to maintenance, it would fall under sub-section (1) and
not under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. In this view we are in consonance
with the decisions in Bai Vijia (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 291;
Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., [19871 3
SCC 674; Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal v. Maharaja
Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai & Anr., [1988] 1 SCC 99
and Jaswant Kaur v. Major Harpal Singh, [1989] 3 SCC
572. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of
the view that the decisions of Mst. Karmi v. Amru & Ors., [
1972] 4 SCC 86 and Kothi Satyanarayana v. Galla Sithayya
& Ors., [ 1986] 4 SCC 760 are distinguishable on
facts.
388
In the result, the Judgment and decree of the High
Court are set aside, this appeal is allowed and the suit is
dismissed. However, under the facts and circumstances of
the case, we make no orders as to costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
389