Holding

A Hindu widow who is in possession of her deceased husband’s share becomes an absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore the deed of gift executed by her is valid; the High Court’s interference with the factual findings was a manifest error.

Summary

The case concerned land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act that had been mutated in the name of Damoder Mahto. After Damoder's death, his widow Koleshra Devi (Kaulashwari) possessed a share of the land in lieu of maintenance. She executed a deed of gift on 7 May 1960 in favour of the appellants, heirs of Ram Layak. The issue was whether the gift deed was valid, i.e., whether under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the widow became an absolute owner and could freely transfer the property. The Supreme Court held that the Act converts a widow’s limited right of maintenance into absolute ownership, making the gift deed valid. It also ruled that the High Court erred by interfering with the factual findings of the lower courts without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the deed of gift executed by Koleshra Devi in 1960 is valid under law.
Whether Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 makes a Hindu widow in possession of her husband’s share an absolute owner, enabling her to gift the property.
Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings of the lower courts without raising a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Hindu widow rightsSection 14(1) Hindu Succession Actgift deed validityland acquisition compensationmaintenance rightsabsolute ownershipCPC Section 100 jurisdictionappellate review

Judgment

A CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.
v.
·• SARJUG SINGH AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 30, 2006
B
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

C s. 14(1)-Hindu widow-In possession of share of her husband prior
to coming into force of the Act-Held, became absolute owner in terms of
s.14(1)-Gift deed executed by her valid-Land acquisition Act, 1894-Claim
for compensation for land gifted by Hindu widow.

Raghubar Singh and Ors. v. Guiab Singh & Ors., (1998] 6 SCC 314
Dand Shakuntala Devi v. Kam/a and Ors., (2005] 5 SCC 390 , relied on.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

s. JOO-Second appeal-Findings of fact recorded by courts be/ow--
Jnte1ference with-Scope of-Held, while exercising its jurisdiction uls JOO,
£High Court is required to formulate a substantial question of law relating to
a finding offact-Ordinarily, unless there exist sufficient and cogent reasons,
findings offact arrived by courts below are binding on High Court.

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 2000.

F From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.2.1999 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in S.A. No. 127 of 1995.

E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh, Rajendra Rohtagi and Ms. Diksha Rai for the
Appellants.

G S.B. Upadhyay, Shiv Mangat Sharma and Ms. Kumud L. Das for the
Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered :

880
H
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. v. SARJUG SINGH 881
ORDER A
One lshwar Dutta was the owner of the Property. He died leaving
behind three Sons- Mahadeo, Hira and Mahabir died issueless. His Interest
in the Property, therefore, vested in Mahadeo and Mewa (son of Hira) who
predecessor him. Mewa died in 1921-22 leaving behind a Son Damoder.
Koleshra Devi was the widow of Damodar whose exact date of death is not B
known but he is Said to have expired sometime aftepi!'J 932.

The plaintiffs herein are heris of Ram Layak- one of the sons ofMahadeo
whereas the respondent herein are heirs of Raja, another son of Mahadeo.

The Properties in question bearing plot Nos. 901, 902 and 907 were
c
acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The properties
were mutated in the name of Damoder.

The amount of compensation was paid to respondent Mona Devi.
D
The appellants herein filed an application under section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act before the Collector whereupon a reference was made. One
of the issues which fell for consideration before the Reference Judge under
the Land Acquisition Act was as to whether the deed of gift executed by
Koleshra Devi in respect of her half share of Plot No. 901 full share of plot
No. 902 and three fourth share of plot No. 907 in Favour of the appellants E
herein by deed of gift dated 7.5.1960 was valid in law.

It was inter alia held that Koleshra Devi being possessed of the Share
which vested in her on the death of her husband-Damoder in lieu of
maintenance,, she become the absolute owner in terms of Section 14 (I) of F
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,

The judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court was reversed
by the First Appellate Court.

The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment allowed the appeal G
preferred by the respondents herein and affirmed judgment of the trial Court
opining :

" ... .It is not in dispute that mostt. Kauleshwara was maintenance
holder and her husband had died before the year 1937. Nothing has
come on record that she was put in possession over the lands, in lieu H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A of maintenance, which she gifted to the respondents. In absence of
such evidence, she was not authorised to make a gift and Ext. I was
invalid."

The extent of the share of the parties herein are said to be as under:

B Plot Originally in Share of petitioners Share of
No. name of respondents
901 Mahadeo Half Half
902 Mew a Full (gifted by Koleshra Devi)

c 903 Mahabir
Mahadeo)
(Mewa Three Fourth (Half of Mawa
gifted by Koleshra Devi &
One fourth (one

One fourth of Mahadeo) fourth of Mahadeo)

Total Three. fourth One fourth

D The learned councel appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend
that having regard to the fact that a finding of fact had been arrived at that
Koleshra Devi was possessed of the property in question, the High Court
committed a manifest error in interfering therewith.

Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a decision of this Court
E in Raghubar Singh and Ors. v. Guiab Singh & Ors., [1998) 6 SCC 314. Mr.
Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on
the other hand would support the judgment.

We may before adverting to the question raised before us must observe
that the High Court dealt with the matter in a very slipshod manner. It
F interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court
without assigning any reason therefor .While exercising its Jurisdiction under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . .The High Court is required to
formulate a substantial question of law in relation to a finding of fact. The
High Court exercise a limited jurisdiction in that behalf. Ordinarily unless
G there exists a sufficient and cogent reasons, the findings of fact arrived at by
the Courts below are binding on the High Court. The First Appellate Court
clearly came to the following conclusion :

" .... Mewa Mahto died leaving behind Demoder Mahto and Damodar
Mahto died leaving behind Kaulashwari who according to the discussed
H evidence came into possession as limited owner and not as maintenance

,
....
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. v. SARJUG SINGH 883

holder only as alleged by the respondent. Before passing of the Hindu A
Succession Act 1956 She was limited owner and in that capacity she
was competent enough to remain in possession of the lands recorded
in the name of Mewa Mahto and fter passing of the Hindu Succeession
Act she become absolute owner. The gift deed dated 7.5.1960 was
executed after passing of the Hindu Succession Act when she has full B
authority to execute the gift deed. The learned Subordinate Judge has
given no importance to the gift deed Ext. I and hold that in the lost
it importance in eye of law. As mentioned above Kauleshwari has
executed the deed after passing of the Hindu Succession Act and in
that circumstances it being documents of 30 years old carried
presumption of genuineness." c
Once it was found that Koleshra Devi was possessed of the land in
question in lieu of her right of maintenance, in our opinion, Sub-Section 1
of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will clearly be attracted.

In Raghubar Singh and Ors. V. Guiab Singh & Ors., [1998] 6 sec 314 D
this Court stated the law in the following terms:

" 17. The obligations, under the Shastric Hindu Law, to maintain
a Hindu widow out of the properties of her deceased husband received
a statutory recognition with the coming into force of the Hindu
Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. the law on the subject was, E
thereafter, consolidated and codified by the Hindu Married Women's
Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946 which came
into force on 23.4.1946. The right to maintenance of the Hindu widow,
as a Pre-existing right, was thus recognised by the two statutes referred
to above but it was not created for the first time by any of those
statutes. Her right to maintenance exited under the Shastric Hindu F
law long before statutory enactments came into force. After the
attainment of independence, the need for emancipation of women
from feudal bondage because even more imperative. There was
growing agitation by Hindu women for enlargement of their rights as
provided by the Shastric Hindu law in various spheres. It was at this G
juncture that Parliament stepped in and enacted various statutes like
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 providing for intestate
succession.

18. The Hindu Succession Act, I 936 made far-reaching charges in H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A the structure of Hindu law by removing the traditional limitations on
the powers of a HJndu widow to deal with the property of her deceased
husband in her possession in lieu pf her right to maintenance and the
Act made her an absolute owner of the property, over which hitherto
fore, she had only a limited right."

B It was further held:

"24 ..... According!y, we hold that the right to maintenance of a
Hindu female flows from the social and temporal relationship between
the husband and the wife that right in the case of a widow is 'a pre-
existing right", which existed under the Shastric Hindu Law before
c the passing of the 193 7 or the 1946 Acts. Those Acts merely recognised
the position as was existing under the Shastric Hindu law and gave
it a 'statutory' backing. Where a Hindu widows is in possession of
the property of her husband, she has a right to be maintained out of
it and she is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu
of her right to maintenance."
D
In Shakuntala Devi v. Kam/a and Ors., [2005] 5 SCC 390] it was
observed:

"I I. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Ba/want
Singh, [1997] 7 SCC 137 would have a bearing on the merits of this
E case wherein it is hel(l that suit for possession would not be maintable
on the basis of a declaratory decree as the declaratory decree did not
convey any title in favour of the reversioners. This was a case under
the Hindu Law wherein the widow of the original owner in the year
1954 made a gift and got the land mutated in favour of her adopted
F sons. The reversioners filed a suit seeking a decree that the alienation
made by the widow was not binding on their reversionery rights. The
suit was decreed and it was held that· the gift made by the widow. .
would not affect the rights of the reversioners. The property was
remutated in the name of the widow. In the year 1970, the widow
again gifted the suit property to the adopted sons and she died in the
G year 1973. In a suit for recovery of possession by the reversioners on
the basis of the earlier decree, the court held that since the widow
continued to be in possession of the property even after the declaratory
decree obtained by the reversioners because of the enlarged rights
she got under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which made her the
H absolute owner of the property, the gifts of the property made by her
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. v. SARJUG SINGH 885

to her adopted sons in the year 1970 could not be set aside. A
12. Almost similar are the facts of this case inasmuch as in this case
also since on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act by
virtue of Section 14 (I), the limited right got by Uttamdassi under the
will got enlarged to an absolute right in the suit property. Thus, she
became absolute owner of the property hence, any declaratory right B
obtained earlier by the reversioner as contemplated in the will cannot
be the basis on which the suit for Possession could be maintained
unless, of course, the claimants in the suit for possession established
a better title independent of the declaratory decree obtained by them."

As Koleshra Devi, in terms of the provisions of section 14 (I) of the C
Hin du Succession Act, 1950 became absolute owner of the property and thus
she was competent to execute the deed of sale in the year I 960.

In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court, we are of
the opinion that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the D
well considered judgment of the First Appellate Court and it is set aside
accordingly.

The appeal is allowed. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.