LAXMAPPA AND ORS.versusSMT. BALAWA KOM TIRKAPPA CHAVDI

A                            LAXMAPPA AND ORS."
                                           v.
                  SMT. BALAWA KOM TIRKAPPA CHAVDI

                                  AUGUST 6, 1996

8     [MADAN MOHAN PUNC!IHI, AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

            Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

          S.14(1) and (2)-Hindll widow adopting her brother as her son with
C   the consent of her fathe1-Father and adoptive son jointly making a gift of
    some a!jlicuftural land in her favour in 1950 with the condition that Oil her
    death prope1ty would devolve on dono1'~After the enactment of the Act,
    widow filing a suit for declaration that size was full owner of tlze &ifted
    land-Held, High Cowt was 1ight in holding thats. 14(1) of the Act was
    attracted to tlze gift and the widow, had become a complete owner of the
D   prope1ties gifted.

            Hindu Law :

           Father's obligation to maintain his destitute widowed dauglzte1'-lield,
    a moral obligation even though not enforceable under law, would by acknow-
E   ledwnent, b1ing it to the level of a legal obligatio11, for it would be pe1fectly
    legitimate for the father to treat himself obliged out of love and affection to
    n1aintain his destitute daughte1; even ilnpinging to a reasonable extent on his
    ancestral property-Kmta of tlze family /zas in some circumstances power to
    alie11ate ancestral property to meet an obligation of the kind.

F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                 Civil Appeal No. 383 of
    1987.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 9.6.83 of the Karnataka High
    Court in R.S.A. No. 480 of 1976.

G           Devendra Singh for the Appellants.

            Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H           The plaintiff-respondent (who is now dead and represented by her
                                        308
                 LAXMAPPAv. BALAWAKOMTIRKAPPACHAVDI                        309

      daughter) had a brother. She adopted her brother as her son with the A
      consent of her father. She thus became the adoptive mother of the adopted
      son. That relationship obligated the son to maintain his mother. On the
     other hand, she remained a daughter of her father. Widowed as she was,
     her natural father and her adopted son jointly made a gift of some agricul-
     tural land in her favour, acknowledging in the deed thereof that since she
                                                                                   B
     was destitute and unable to maintain herself, provision had to be made for
     her, for her lifetime. It was however specified therein that after her death
     the property would devolve upon the donors' which expression included
     their legal heirs. This Deed of 31.7.1950 was claimed by the plaintiff-
     respondent to have matured into full ownership on the coming into force
     of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by the thrust of C
     Section 14(1) of the Act for which she filed a suit for declaration etc. Her
     suit was resisted on the ground that Section 14(2) was applicable and that
     the gift was conditional to be reverting back on her death to the line of the
     donors. The ultimate finding recorded by the High Court is that it is a gift
     to which Section 14(1) of the Act is attracted and therefore the plaintiff- D
     respondent had become a complete owner of the properties gifted.

           Mr. Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, has candidly
     stated that insofar as the adopted son was concerned, he was legally bound
     to maintain his adoptive mother and therefore his half share in the donated
     land would come within the grip of Section 14(1) to which the plaintiff- E
     respondent could legitimately claim to have become its absolute owner.
     Insofar as the other half donated by the father of the plaintiff-respondent
     was concerned, he points out that there was no such legal obligation on
     him to maintain her and thus that part of the gift would fall within the
     sweep of Section 14(2) of the Act. Sequelly, it is claimed that half of the F
     property must return to the line of the father who has other grandsons,
     with whom he shared the property as ancestral.

-·         The law on the subject was taken stock of by the High Court by
     quoting para 546 of Mulla's book on Hindu Law, 15th Edition, which
     provides that a Hindu father is bound to maintain his unmarried daughters, G
     and on the death of the father, they are entitled to be maintained out of
     his estate. The position of the married daughter is somewhat different. It
     is acknowledged that if the daughter is unable to obtain maintenance from
     her husband, or, after his death, from his family, her father, if he has got
     separate property of his own, is under a moral, though not a legal, obliga- H
    310.                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   tion to maintain her. The High Court has concluded that it was clear that
    the father was under an obligation to maintain the plaintiff-respondent.
    Seemingly, the High Court in doing so was conscious of the declaration
    made in the gift deed in which she was described as a destitute and unable
    to maintain herself. In that way, the father may not have had a legal
    obligation to maintain her but all the same there existed a moral obligation.
B
    And if in acknowledgment of that moral obligation the father had trans-
    fered property to his daughter then it is an obligation well-fructified. In
    other words, a moral obligation even though not enforceable under the law,
    would by acknowledgment, bring it to the level of a legal obligation, for it
    would be perfectly legitimate for the father to treat himself obliged out of
C   love and affection to maintain his destitute daughter, even impinging to a
    reasonable extent on his ancestral property. It is duly acknowledged in
    Hindu Law that the Karta of the family has in some circumsfances, power
    to alienate ancestral property to meet an obligation of the kind. We would
    rather construe the said paragraph more liberally in the modern context
D   having regard to the state of law which has been brought about in the
    succeeding years. Therefore, in our view, the High Court was within its
     right, to come to the conclusion that there was an obligation on the part of
     the father to maintain his destitute widowed daughter.

         \For the afore reasoning, we do not think a case is made out warrant-
E   ing our interference in this appeal Accordingly, the same is dismissed but
    without any order as to costs.

     R.P.                                                     Appeal dismissed.