Supreme Court Upholds Reversionary Rights, Denies Absolute Ownership Under Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act: Ajit Kaur vs. Darshan Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 4, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 325
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a woman, who is in possession of a property without a valid title, claim absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a long-standing property dispute. The court clarified that mere possession is not sufficient to claim absolute ownership and upheld the reversionary rights of the original owners. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute originating from the early 1950s. Bhana, the original owner of the land, had two wives: Bhago (first wife) and Banti (second wife). From his first wife, Bhana had three children: Darshan Singh, Amriti, and Udhi alias Iqbal Kaur. From his second wife, Banti, he had a daughter named Ajit Kaur. Due to strained relations with Banti, Bhana gifted the disputed land to her for maintenance in 1950. A mutation was also entered in her favor on February 25, 1950.

Darshan Singh, one of Bhana’s sons from his first wife, challenged this gift, claiming it would not affect his reversionary rights. The trial court ruled in favor of Darshan Singh on June 30, 1954, stating that the gift to Banti would only operate during Bhana’s lifetime. This decision was upheld by the District Judge on November 29, 1954, and the High Court on November 3, 1959. Bhana passed away on March 27, 1973, having executed a will on January 5, 1973, bequeathing his estate to Darshan Singh and his other children from his first wife, excluding Banti and Ajit Kaur. This will led to further litigation regarding the possession of the land.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially held that Banti had become the absolute owner of the property after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, they dismissed the suit filed by Darshan Singh and his siblings. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that Banti’s title was limited to Bhana’s lifetime. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision in the second appeal. The High Court also upheld the validity of the will dated January 5, 1973, in a separate proceeding (RSA No. 933/1984), which was later dismissed by the Supreme Court as not pressed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14(1) states:

“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.”

The explanation to this sub-section includes various modes of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, such as inheritance, devise, partition, in lieu of maintenance, or by gift. However, Section 14(2) carves out an exception:

“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.”

The Supreme Court had to interpret whether Banti’s possession of the land, which was initially given for maintenance, would qualify her as an absolute owner under Section 14(1) or whether her rights were limited by the initial decree and the nature of the transfer.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Ajit Kaur) Submissions:

• Banti, being the widow of Bhana, was part of the coparcenary and entitled to a 1/3rd share after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

• The appellate court erred in relying on the will dated January 5, 1973, without considering the subsequent will dated February 21, 1973.

• The progeny of Bhana consisted of one son and three daughters from his first wife, and one daughter and a widow from the second marriage. Therefore, the son and three daughters from the first wife would get 2/3rd of the property, and the widow and daughter from the second marriage would get 1/3rd.

• The will dated January 5, 1973, was never proved or produced before the trial court and should not be considered.

• The lower courts misconstrued the law applicable to coparcenary property. The right of a female to succeed could not be defeated by a sham sale deed and had to be questioned within three years of the sale. Since the right to succeed arose only after Bhana’s death in 1973, the suit for possession was filed within the 12-year limitation period.

• The will dated January 5, 1973, could not affect the rights of the successor after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The property gifted to Banti before the Act for maintenance should be considered her absolute property after the Act came into force.

• Bhana could not execute a will regarding the ancestral property in Banti’s possession for maintenance. The property became Banti’s absolute property on the enforcement of the Act on June 17, 1956.

• The reversionary rights of the respondents do not become effective when the succession opened after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The decree is only effective if reversionary rights existed when the succession opened on Bhana’s death.

• Customary law does not override the Hindu Succession Law, and the earlier customs are abrogated by Section 4 and Section 30 of the Act.

Respondents’ (Darshan Singh and Others) Submissions:

• The land was mutated in Banti’s name based on an oral gift, which does not bind their reversionary rights. The courts have consistently held that the oral gift was not proven.

• Even if the respondents cannot rely on the decree to seek possession, the findings in the suit proceedings would bind the parties.

• It was never the appellant’s case that the land was given to Banti for maintenance. Instead, it was claimed that the land was given in lieu of services rendered. The will dated January 5, 1973, specifically mentions the land given to Banti for maintenance.

• Banti was living separately and in adultery, as mentioned in Bhana’s will. Mere possession of the land does not make her an absolute owner under the Act, 1956. To avail the benefit of Section 14(1), the woman must come into possession of the land under one of the devices mentioned therein.

• The appellant conceded in earlier proceedings that the will dated January 5, 1973, was validly executed. The validity of this will was upheld in RSA No. 933/1984, and the appellant’s appeal against that judgment was dismissed. The will dated February 21, 1973, was not legally executed and proved.

• The appellant has no legitimate right to claim possession by way of succession under the Act, 1956, and the restoration of reversionary rights was correct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether a female Hindu in possession of property, without a valid title, can claim absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court

The Court used the authorities as follows:

• Eramma Vs. Veerupana and Others [AIR 1996 SC 1879]*: This case was used to emphasize that mere possession is not sufficient to claim absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The female Hindu must have some form of title or right over the property.
• V. Tulasamma and Others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs [1977(3) SCC 99]*: This case was referred to for the interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2). The Court reiterated that Section 14(1) should be liberally construed in favor of females, but it does not confer title where none existed. Additionally, Section 14(2) applies to instruments that create new titles and not those that merely recognize pre-existing rights.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that mere possession of a property by a female Hindu is not sufficient to grant her absolute ownership under Section 14(1). The possession must be under some valid claim, right, or title. The Court also considered the previous judgments, especially the High Court’s decision upholding the will dated January 5, 1973, and the fact that the appellant had conceded to its validity in earlier proceedings. The Court found that Banti’s possession was not based on any valid title or right and therefore, she could not claim absolute ownership. The Court also noted the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the invalidity of the oral gift and the subsequent will.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the argument that Banti’s possession of the property should grant her absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that mere possession is not sufficient. The court emphasized that the possession must be under some valid claim, right, or title as specified in the explanation to Section 14(1). The court also rejected the argument that the will dated January 5, 1973, was invalid, noting that it had been upheld in previous proceedings and the appellant had conceded to its validity. The court also rejected the argument that the property was given to Banti for maintenance, as it was not supported by evidence. The court upheld the reversionary rights of the original owners based on the will and the fact that Banti’s possession did not meet the requirements of Section 14(1). The court cited the cases of Eramma Vs. Veerupana and Others and V. Tulasamma and Others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs to support its interpretation of Section 14.

The court stated:

“It is a settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title.”

“Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 clearly envisage that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title or under any of the devise which has been purported under the law.”

“The words ‘possessed by’ used by the Legislature in Section 14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property even though the owner is not in actual or physical possession of the same…It is equally well settled that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser without any right or title.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere Possession is Not Enough: Under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, mere possession of property by a female Hindu is insufficient to claim absolute ownership. The possession must be backed by a valid title, right, or claim.
• Importance of Valid Title: A female Hindu must possess some form of legal right or title to the property to claim full ownership. Possession without a valid claim does not qualify for absolute ownership under Section 14(1).
• Reversionary Rights Protected: The Supreme Court upheld the reversionary rights of the original owners, emphasizing that the succession would be governed by the will and the legal rights of the parties.
• Mutation Does Not Confer Title: Mutation of property in revenue records is a fiscal proceeding and does not create or extinguish title. It only enables the person to pay land revenue.
• Interpretation of Section 14: The court reiterated that Section 14(1) should be liberally construed in favor of females, but it does not confer title where none existed. Section 14(2) applies to instruments that create new titles, not those that merely recognize pre-existing rights.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere possession of a property by a female Hindu is not sufficient to grant her absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The possession must be under some valid claim, right, or title. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 14 as laid down in earlier cases like Eramma Vs. Veerupana and Others and V. Tulasamma and Others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs, and it does not introduce any new legal principles. The court clarified that the possession of the widow must be under some vestige of a claim, right, or title, and not as a trespasser. This reaffirms the established position of law regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act.

Conclusion

In the case of Ajit Kaur vs. Darshan Singh, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court clarified that mere possession of a property by a female Hindu is not sufficient to claim absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The possession must be under a valid title, right, or claim. The Court’s decision reinforces the existing legal framework and ensures that reversionary rights are protected where the female’s possession is not backed by a valid legal claim. This judgment reaffirms the established interpretation of Section 14 and its application in property disputes.