Supreme Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Property Under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act: Munni Devi vs. Rajendra (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 455

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a Hindu widow’s right to maintenance transform into full ownership of a property? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, examining the scope and application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This judgment clarifies the rights of Hindu women regarding property they possess in lieu of maintenance. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute in Jaipur. The original plaintiff, Daulalji, claimed ownership of a house (suit property) based on an adoption and a will. The defendant, Bhonri Devi, was the widow of Daulalji’s cousin and was in possession of the property. Bhonri Devi contended that she had a right to the property as maintenance and that this right had transformed into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit property was an ancestral property in the hands of Harinarayan ji and his brother Ganesh narayan ji. Daulalji claimed that he was adopted by Sri Bakshji, who was the great-grandson of their common ancestor Gopalji on 11.06.1916. The husband of the defendant No.1 Bhonri Devi, i.e., Dhannalalji predeceased his father Ganesh narayan ji in 1936. Ganesh narayan ji expired in 1938 and his brother Harinarayan ji died issueless on 11.11.1953. As per the plaintiff’s case, Harinarayan ji had executed a Will on 30.07.1949 in his favour, and upon his death, on 11.11.1953, he had become the owner of the suit property. Upon the death of Harinarayan ji, the defendant No.1 – Bhonri Devi started harassing the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff left the suit property on 25.12.1953, and since then the defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of Daulalji, but the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan reversed this decision, ruling in favor of Bhonri Devi’s legal representatives. The High Court held that Bhonri Devi’s limited right to maintenance had become a full right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1989 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Class -1, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.56/73, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff Daulalji. The legal representatives of Daulalji then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which 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 section clarifies that “property” includes what is acquired by a female Hindu through inheritance, partition, maintenance, gift, or her own efforts. The Supreme Court also considered the pre-existing rights of Hindu women to maintenance under Shastric law and the implications of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1947. However, the court noted that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 was not applicable in this case since the husband of Bhonri Devi died in 1936, before the commencement of the said Act of 1937. The court also considered Section 27 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Daulalji’s legal representatives) submissions:

• The High Court erred in applying Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as Bhonri Devi did not have a pre-existing limited right in the suit property. The Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1937 was not applicable, and the Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1947 was also not applicable as Dhannalal and Ganesh Narayan died before the commencement of the Act of 1947.
• Mere possession or right to maintenance under Shastric law does not grant ownership under Section 14(1). There was no specific plea by Bhonri Devi for full ownership under Section 14(1).
• No limited ownership was created in favor of Bhonri Devi in the suit property. The presumption of limited ownership must flow from law, custom, instrument, or decree.
• Possession was not given to Bhonri Devi in lieu of her maintenance right. A pre-existing “limited ownership” is necessary for Section 14(1) to apply.
• Right to maintenance is against the joint family’s properties generally, not a specific property.
• A right to maintenance does not create a charge on the property unless by agreement or decree.
• Bhonri Devi’s maintenance claim should be limited to Ganesh Narayanji’s 1/4th share in the property. The remaining 3/4th belonged to Daulalji due to adoption and Harinarayanji’s will.
• The suit property should remain within the appellant’s family.

Respondents’ (Bhonri Devi’s legal representatives) submissions:

• Exclusive possession of HUF property creates a presumption that it was earmarked for maintenance, especially when no alternative property was provided.
• Bhonri Devi’s exclusive possession was never questioned by Daulalji. The suit property was a small part of the total HUF properties.
• Section 14(1) aims to confer absolute ownership on Hindu widows in settled possession of HUF property in lieu of their maintenance right.
• “Possession” in Section 14(1) includes actual and constructive possession. “Acquire” includes acquisition by possession, especially when it satisfies a pre-existing maintenance right.
• Harinarayanji’s rights were subject to Bhonri Devi’s pre-existing maintenance right. Daulalji inherited the property subject to Bhonri Devi’s limited estate.

The innovativeness of the arguments was that the appellants argued that mere possession was not sufficient to claim ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that a pre-existing limited right was necessary. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the exclusive possession of the widow was sufficient to create a presumption that the property was earmarked for her maintenance and that this amounted to a limited right that ripened into full ownership under Section 14(1).

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether Bhonri Devi, the predecessor of the present respondents, had become an absolute owner on coming into force of the Act of 1956, revolves around the interpretation of Section 14 thereof.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authorities Table

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The pre-existing right of a Hindu widow to maintenance under Shastric law, which is not a mere formality but a tangible right against property.
• The settled legal possession of Bhonri Devi in the suit property, which was admitted by the plaintiff, and the fact that she was collecting rent from the tenants.
• The wide interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which aims to confer absolute ownership on Hindu women in possession of property in lieu of their maintenance.
• The fact that no alternative property was earmarked for Bhonri Devi’s maintenance.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as Bhonri Devi’s possession of the property and her collection of rent, but the legal aspects, particularly the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that a Hindu widow’s pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with her settled possession of property in lieu of that maintenance, ripens into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This principle applies even if the property was not specifically allotted to her for maintenance through a formal agreement or decree, as long as her possession is in recognition of her right to maintenance. The court emphasized that the words “possessed by” and “acquired” in Section 14(1) are to be given the widest amplitude.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following observations that are considered obiter dicta:

• The court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of V.Tulasamma vs. Sesha Reddy regarding the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The court emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 14(1), which is to remove the shackles of limited ownership for Hindu women and to grant them full ownership of the property they possess.
• The court stated that the expression “possessed by” in Section 14(1) should be given the widest possible meaning.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Munni Devi vs. Rajendra reinforces the progressive nature of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It reaffirms that a Hindu widow’s right to maintenance, when coupled with settled possession of property, transforms into full ownership, even if the property was not formally assigned to her for maintenance. This judgment provides crucial clarity on the property rights of Hindu women and serves as a significant precedent.