Holding

A gift made to a widow in lieu of maintenance before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, falls under Section 14(1) and gives her an absolute estate, not a limited estate under Section 14(2).

Summary

The case concerned a gift of land made by Kehar Singh in 1947 to his second wife, Basant Kaur, as maintenance. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow’s step‑grandsons claimed the gift gave her only a limited estate under Section 14(2) and that the estate could not be enlarged. The High Court held the gift fell under Section 14(2) and thus gave her a limited estate. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a pre‑Act gift made in lieu of maintenance is governed by Section 14(1) (absolute estate) or Section 14(2). Relying on precedent, the Court held that because the gift was expressly for maintenance and predates the Act, it falls under Section 14(1) and confers an absolute estate. Consequently, the widow’s estate was not limited and could not be challenged as such. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether a gift made to a widow in lieu of maintenance before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confers an absolute estate under Section 14(1) or a limited estate under Section 14(2).
Whether a limited estate, if deemed to exist, can be enlarged into an absolute estate after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1), s. 14(2)

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 14widow's estatemaintenanceabsolute estatelimited estategift in lieu of maintenanceproperty rights

Judgment

GURDIP SINGH AND ANR.
v.
AMAR SINGH AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 14, 1991

[K.N. SAIKIA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] B

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.

)- The grandfather of the appellants and respondents had two wives.
The first wife and her only son died during bis life time. The pre- C
deceased son left behind four sons and a daughter. hi 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 courts held that she had the absolute D
estate in the properties after the pasing 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. E

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 not
a case of her acquiring any new property by virtue of the gift but it was f
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 fall under sub-section (1) and
not under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, G
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 Animal v. Maharaja Pillai Thil-
lanavakom Pillai & Anr., [1988] 1 SCC 99; Jaswant Kaur v. Major H

385
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

Harpal Singh, [1989] 3 SCC 572; relied on.
A
Mst. Karmi v. Amru & Ors., [1972] 4 SCC 86; Kothi Satyanara-
yana v. Galla Sithayya & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 760; distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2877
B of 1977. .

From the Judgment and Decree dated 19.8.1977 of the Punja~ r
and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 334of1975.

c
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
D Devi died during Kehar Singh's life time. Sahib Devi's son was Niran-
jan 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 li..._ ~
which arose for consideration before the lower Court was whether/ -
E 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).

with~
F
. The Exhibit D-1 was the report of the Patwari in connection
the mutation proceedings and it said:

"Today Kehar Singh owner of Khewat came alongwith
Narain Singh Lambardar and stated that he had on 14th
G 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.
H She served me. Lambardar attests so the mutation is
entered."
GURDIP SINGH v. AMAR SINGH 387

On 30th July, 1947, the Assistant Collector made the following orders:
A
"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 B
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, c
which is attested in favour of Mst. Basant Kaur donee."

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 D
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 I E
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 i
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 o(
maintenance. This acquisition on 26th April, 1947 havin&been prior to
-)>- the Hindu Succession Act, we are ofthe view that she hating acquired
F
• this property by way of gift in lieu of her antecedent right to main-
tenance, 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 ~he decisions in Bai Vijia (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 291; Gu/want Kaur &
Anr. v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 674; Maharaja Pillai G
Lakshmi Ammal v. Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai & Anr.,
[1988] 1 SCC 99 and Jaswant Kaur v. Major Harpal Singh, [1989] 3
sec 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. H