Limited Estate Given To Hindu Wife By Way Of Will Can Become Absolute Under Sec14(1) Hindu Succession Act Only If Property Was Given For Her Maintenance: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:7 mins read

Limited Estate Given To Hindu Wife By Way Of Will Can Become Absolute Under Sec14(1) Hindu Succession Act Only If Property Was Given For Her Maintenance

Case: Jogi Ram vs Suresh Kumar

Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh

Case No.: CA 1543-1544 OF 2019

Court Observation: “The objective of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a female if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of”

(4) Sub-section (2) of s. 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and s. 14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely declares or recognises a pre-existing right, such as a claim to maintenance or partition or share to which the female is entitled, the sub-section has absolutely no application and the female’s limited interest would automatically be enlarged into an absolute one by force of s. 14(1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored. Thus where a property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken out of the ambit of sub- s. (2) and would be governed by s. 14(1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.

“In our view the objective of sub-Section (2) above is quite clear as enunciated repeatedly by this Court in various judicial pronouncements, i.e., there cannot be a fetter in a owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said Act”

In our view the relevant aspect of the aforesaid conclusion is para 4 which opines where sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the said Act would apply and this does inter alia applies to a Will which may create independent and new title in favour of females for the first time and is not a recognition of a pre-existing right. In such cases of a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) of the said Act will not operate in that sphere.

We may add here that the objective of Section 14(1) is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of the wife where such limited estate owes its origin to law as it stood then. The objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of. If we were to hold so it would imply that if the wife is disinherited under the Will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of the intent of the testator. That cannot be the objective, in our view.

“He, however, wished to give only a limited lift interest to her as the second wife with the son inheriting the complete estate after her lifetime. We are, thus, of the view that it would be the provisions of Section 14(2) of the said Act which would come into play in such a scenario and Ram Devi only had a life interest in her favour. The natural sequitur is that the respondents cannot inherit a better title than what the vendor had and, thus, the view taken by the trial court and the first appellate court is the correct view and the sale deeds in favour of the respondents cannot be sustained.”

Previous posts

Criminal Court Can Try A Case Against Army Man If Commanding Officer Does Not Exercise Discretion U/Sec 125 Army Act To Initiate Court-Martial: Supreme Court

Intent of Army Act is Not to Protect Army Personnel by Awarding Them Lesser Punishment Even for Serious Offences: Supreme Court

Disobedience Has To Be Wilful To Attract Civil Contempt Action Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC: Supreme Court In Future-Amazon Case

Legislature Cannot Protect Actions Taken Under An Unconstitutional Law By Enacting A Saving Clause: Supreme Court

Conviction Can be Solely Based Upon Dying Declaration Without Corroboration: Supreme Court

Right Not To Be Deported Is Ancillary To A Fundamental Right Available Only To Indian Citizens Download Judgement

Keywords

Hindu Succession Act, Limited Estate