MUKATLALversusKAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

                  [2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428

                             Mukatlal
                                 v.
              Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2024)
                                   16 May 2024
                [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce
       her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family
       property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

                                    Headnotes
       Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property of a female
       Hindu to be her absolute property – Right of the legal heir
       of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the
       unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1),
       when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of
       the suit land:
       Held: For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family
       estate u/s. 14(1), the Hindu female must not only be possessed
       of the property but she must have acquired the property and such
       acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at
       a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance
       or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
       prescription – On going through the pleadings in the Revenue
       suit for partition filed by legal heir, it is clear that that the widow
       or the legal heir himself were never in possession of the suit
       property – As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that
       the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and appellant-
       beneficiary of the unpartitioned estate by way of Will, had consented
       to give half share of the suit property to the legal heir on his
       demand – This assertion was denied by appellant – Widow was
       never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit
       was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession
       and the same was dismissed and she was held only entitled to
       receive maintenance from the undivided estate – This finding of
       the civil Court was never challenged – Since, widow was never
       in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                             299

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


     Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership u/s. 14(1)
     could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff by virtue
     of inheritance – Thus, the impugned judgments restoring the
     judgment and decree of the Revenue Court that the plaintiff being
     the sole legal heir of the widow has coparcenary rights over the
     lands belonging to widow’s husband, cannot be sustained and
     are set aside. [Paras 17, 24-28]

                              Case Law Cited
           M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. A.
           Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others (2023) SCC
           OnLine SC 1078 – relied on.
           Ram Vishal(dead) by LRs. And Others v. Jagannath
           and Another (2004) 9 SCC 302; Vasant and Anr. v.
           Dattu & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 160; Munni Devi alias Nathi
           Devi (Dead) Thr LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal
           (Dead) Thr LRs & Ors. [2022] 3 SCR 876 : (2022) SCC
           OnLine SC 643 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

                             List of Keywords
     Right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property;
     Full ownership; Undivided joint family estate; Inheritance or devise;
     In lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance; Suit for partition;
     Absolute ownership.

                            Case Arising From

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 1029 of 2006

                         Appearances for Parties

     Puneet Jain, Mrs. Christi Jain, Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Ms.
     Lisha, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Atul Jha, Vinayak Sharma,
     Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.
300                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                   Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                    Judgment
       Mehta, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     The instant appeal by special leave challenges the final judgment and
       order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Division Bench
       of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029
       of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant questioning
       the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 passed
       by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil
       Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 was dismissed.
3.     For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their
       rank in the Revenue Court.
4.     In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter in
       the proper perspective, it would be beneficial to reproduce the
       genealogical table/pedigree of the families of the parties.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           301

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


     Chronological List of Events: -

         Dates                               Event
          After the death of Kishan Lal, Hindu Undivided Family(HUF)
        property devolved among his two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal.
          1912      Mangilal passed away. (Survived by his son, Kanwarlal)
          1929      Madho Lal passed away (Issueless, survived by his
                    widow- Smt. Nandkanwarbai)
      09.02.1949 Kanwarlal executed a will in favour of his son, Mukat
                 Lal (appellant herein).
          1954      Kanwarlal Passed Away.
                        First Set of Legal Proceedings
          1958      Smt. Nandkanwarbai filed Civil Suit No. 11of 1958 for
                    declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit
                    property.
      21.05.1959 Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958 was dismissed however the
                 Civil Judge held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had the right
                 to be maintained out of the suit property.
      12.06.1959 Smt. Nandkanwarbai adopted Kailash Chand(original
                 respondent herein).
      12.07.1966 Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 64 of 1966 against order
                 dated 21.05.1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958.
      09.02.1968 Civil Judge allowed Appeal No. 64 of 1966 and set aside
                 the order to the extent that it gave Smt. Nandkanwarbai
                 the right to be maintained out of the suit property.
                    Aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred SB Civil
                    Second Appeal No. 347 of 1968
          1972      Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away. Kailash Chand was
                    substituted as legal representative of deceased Smt.
                    Nandkanwarbai in 1973.
      20.03.1973 High Court allowed SB Civil Second Appeal No. 347 of
                 1968 and held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled
                 to the right of maintenance out of the suit property, she
                 being the widow of the deceased coparcener in joint
                 Hindu family property.
302                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports



                              Present Proceedings
        20.06.1979 Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 under section 53 of
                   Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 was filed by Kailash Chand,
                   for partition of the suit property, in the capacity of the
                   legal heir of his adopted mother Smt. Nandkanwarbai.
        14.12.1983 Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 was allowed and decreed
                   by Sub Divisional Officer, Bundi wherein it was held
                   that Kailash Chand being the sole legal heir of Smt.
                   Nandkanwarbai has coparcenary rights over the lands
                   belonging to Madho Lal.
           1984      Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 12 of 1984 challenging
                     order dated 14.12.1983 before Revenue Appellate
                     Authority, Kota.
        31.01.1986 Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota allowed Appeal No. 12
                   of 1984 and decree passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
                   Bundi dated 14.12.1983 was set aside.
           1986      Kailash Chand preferred Second Appeal being S.A. 120
                     of 1986 before Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
        12.03.1992 Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed S.A. 120 of 1986
           1993      Kailash Chand filed a Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ
                     Petition No. 1587 of 1993 before High Court challenging
                     the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated
                     12.03.1992.
        21.07.2006 Ld. Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587
                   of 1993 and set aside the judgments passed by Revenue
                   Appellate Authority, Kota and Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
           2006      Mukat Lal filed a Writ Appeal being DB Special Appeal
                     (Writ) No. 1029 of 2006 before the Division Bench.
        02.11.2017   Ld. Division Bench dismissed DB Special Appeal (Writ)
                     No. 1029 of 2006 and upheld the order of the Ld. Single
                     Judge dated 21.07.2006.
        06.02.2018 Present SLP was filed.

5.     The core question of law involved in this appeal is as to the right
       of the plaintiff Kailash Chand being legal heir of Hindu widow Smt.
       Nandkanwarbai to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       303

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


     Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
     Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Succession
     Act’) by filing a suit in the Revenue Court.
6.   Few facts, most germane and relevant to the issue are required to be
     extracted from the chronology of dates and events. The suit property
     was owned by Kishan Lal who had two sons, namely, Mangilal
     and Madho Lal. Madho Lal was married to Smt. Nandkanwarbai.
     Mangilal had a son Kanwarlal. Mangilal died in the year 1912
     whereas Madho Lal died issueless in 1929. Smt. Nandkanwarbai
     claims to have adopted plaintiff Kailash Chand on 12th June, 1959
     that is nearly after 30 years from the date of death of Madho Lal.
     Kanwarlal had executed a will of the entire unpartitioned estate in
     favour of defendant Mukat Lal(appellant herein) on 9th February,
     1949. Shri Kanwarlal passed away in the year 1954. Thus, the suit
     property devolved upon defendant Mukat Lal under the will executed
     by late Shri Kanwarlal.
7.   Smt. Nandkanwarbai, widow of late Madho Lal filed a Civil Suit No.
     11 of 1958 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit
     property contending that the property in question was a joint Hindu
     family property and that the will allegedly executed by late Kanwarlal
     was illegal. It was further contended in the suit that defendant Mukat
     Lal was not entitled to any share in the HUF property by virtue of
     the will. The Civil Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and
     decree dated 21st May, 1959 while recognizing the right of Smt.
     Nandkanwarbai only to the extent of receiving maintenance from
     the suit property.
8.   Smt. Nandkanwarbai, did not challenge the said judgment any
     further. However, defendant Mukat Lal on attaining majority, preferred
     an appeal against the judgment dated 21st May, 1959 which was
     allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 9th
     February, 1968 and the judgment and decree passed by the civil
     Court in favour of Smt. Nandkanwarbai to the extent of the right to
     receive maintenance from the suit property was set aside.
9.   Being aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred a Second Appeal
     No. 347 of 1968 before the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan
     High Court. During the pendency of the said second appeal, in the
     year 1972 Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away and her legal heir i.e.
     plaintiff Kailash Chand was taken on record. Learned Single Judge of
304                                                          [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment dated 20th March, 1973 allowed
       the second appeal filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai and restored the
       civil Court’s judgment to the extent of her right to be maintained from
       the suit property. Resultantly, the status of defendant Mukat Lal as
       being the beneficiary of the suit lands as being the legatee of the
       will made by his father Shri Kanwarlal stood crystallized.
10. The plaintiff Kailash Chand filed Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 for
    partition of the suit property before the Revenue Court claiming that
    Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to a rightful share in the property
    by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
11. The present appeal arises from the aforesaid Revenue Suit No. 37 of
    1979 seeking partition which culminated in the impugned judgment
    dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of
    the Rajasthan High Court.
12. It may be reiterated that the issue regarding title and possession
    over the suit property stands concluded against Smt. Nandkanwarbai
    (deceased widow) vide judgment and decree dated 21 st May,
    1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958. The said Civil Suit was
    dismissed by the competent Court qua the relief of possession
    and title while recognizing the right to Smt. Nandkanwarbai only
    to the extent of receiving maintenance from the estate. Admittedly,
    Smt. Nandkanwarbai did not challenge the judgment and decree
    dated 21st May, 1959 and thus, it attained finality to the extent of
    possession and title. Apropos, there is no dispute qua the fact that
    Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property.
13. Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant
    advanced the following pertinent submissions and urged that the
    Division Bench erred in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by
    the appellant affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
    restoring the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court.
       (i)    That Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no interest, either limited or
              otherwise, in the suit land which could fructify into absolute
              ownership under section 14(1) of the Succession Act and the
              Division Bench erred in treating “Charge over property towards
              Maintenance” as possession over the property.
       (ii)   It was contended that in order to attract Section 14(1) of the
              Succession Act, there must be a “Property possessed by the
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       305

            Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


            Hindu Women” but in the present case, the suit for possession
            and title filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai was dismissed and hence
            she was never in possession, either legal or actual, over the
            suit property.
     iii)   That the civil suit for title and possession filed by Smt.
            Nandkanwarbai having been dismissed, the judgment of the civil
            Court operated as res judicata and hence the relief could not
            have been granted to her adopted son[Kailash Chand(plaintiff)]
            in the subsequent partition suit filed in the Revenue Court.
     iv)    While placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ram
            Vishal (dead) by LRs. And Others v. Jagannath and Another1,
            it was contended that since Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never
            in possession of the suit property which were agricultural
            lands’ either by inheritance or in lieu of maintenance, as a
            consequence, Section 14(1) of the Succession Act could not
            be applied so as to confer proprietary rights upon her adopted
            son [Kailash Chand (plaintiff)].
     v)     Learned counsel, Shri Jain further contended that reliance
            placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision of Vasant
            and Anr. v. Dattu & Ors.2, is ex-facie erroneous as the said
            judgment deals with issues related to properties held by the
            joint Hindu family having several surviving coparceners and not
            that of a sole surviving coparcener.
     He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the
     impugned judgments.
14. E-converso, Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate
    representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed
    the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and
    contended that the issue in the present case regarding the ambit
    of the rights of a female Hindu on the undivided joint Hindu family
    estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act has been settled
    by this Court in the case of Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi(Dead) Thr
    LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal(Dead) Thr LRs & Ors.3


1   (2004) 9 SCC 302
2   (1987) 1 SCC 160
3   [2022] 3 SCR 876 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 643
306                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       He placed reliance on the pertinent observations (reproduced infra)
       made by this Court in Munni Devi (supra) and implored the Court
       to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgments.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment
    and the material available on record.
16. The plank contention of Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel
    representing the appellant for assailing the impugned judgments
    was that the deceased widow Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in
    possession of the suit property and as a consequence, her adopted
    son, plaintiff Kailash Chand, was precluded from claiming partition
    of the suit property by virtue of succession and hence, the Revenue
    suit was not maintainable. He had placed reliance on the findings
    arrived at by the civil Court in the suit filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai
    to buttress this contention.
17. At the outset, it may be noted that in so far as the aspect that Smt.
    Nandkanwarbai(deceased widow) had never been in possession
    of the suit property is concerned, the same is virtually an admitted
    position from the record because she never challenged the judgment
    and decree dated 21st May, 1959 whereby the suit filed by her for
    declaration of title and possession was dismissed by the civil Court
    and she was held only entitled to receive maintenance from the
    undivided estate. Thus, indisputably neither Smt. Nadkanwarbai nor
    the plaintiff Kailash Chand were ever in possession of the suit land.
18. In the case of Munni Devi(supra) which was heavily relied upon by
    the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Bhattacharya, the admitted
    position was that Bhonri Devi, widow of Late Dhannalalji was actually
    residing in the suit property during the time the coparcener Shri
    Harinarayanji was alive and even after his death, she continued to
    reside in the said house and used to collect the rents from the tenants
    who were occupying the suit property till the date of filing of suit.
19. A Bench of two Honourable Judges of this Court after considering
    the gamut of Section 14 of the Succession Act in the case of Munni
    Devi(supra) observed as below: -
            “14. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt
            that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance was not and is not
            an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                                307

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


           matter of grace and generosity. It is a tangible right against the
           property, which flows from the spiritual relationship between
           the husband and the wife. The said right was recognised and
           enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law, which existed even
           before the passing of the 1937 or the 1946 Acts. Those Acts
           merely gave statutory backing recognising the position as
           was existing under the Shastric Hindu Law. Where a Hindu
           widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of
           the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of
           the said property. She is entitled to retain the possession of
           that property in lieu of her right to maintenance. Section 14(1)
           and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction
           in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and
           promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved
           by the said legislation. As explained in V. Tulasamma
           (supra) case, the words “possessed by” used in Section
           14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include
           the state of owning a property, even though the Hindu
           woman is not in actual or physical possession of the
           same. Of course, it is equally well settled that the
           possession of the widow, must be under some vestige
           of a claim, right or title, because the section does not
           contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser
           without any right or title.
           15. The undisputed facts in the instant case are that
           Dhannalalji, the husband of Bhonri Devi expired in 1936,
           Ganeshnarayanji, the father-in-law of Bhonri Devi expired
           in 1938 and Harinarayanji, the brother of Ganeshnarayanji
           died on 11.11.1953. Daulalji was adopted by Sri Bakshji
           in the year 1916. Harinarayanji, Ganeshnarayanji and
           Sri Bakshji had common ancestor Gopalji. It is also not
           disputed that the suit property was an ancestral property
           in the hands of Harinarayanji and Ganeshnarayanji. It is
           also not disputed that Bhonri Devi was staying in the
           suit property before the death of Harinarayanji, and
           after his death she was in possession and in charge
           of the said property, and was maintaining herself by
           collecting rent from the tenants who were occupying
           part of the suit property.
308                                                    [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       16. Now it appears from the documents on record that
       the rent notes (Exhibit A-2 to A-11) executed during the
       period 1955 to 1965 in respect of the part of the suit
       property, were executed in the name of Bhonri Devi.
       The concerned defendants in the suit had also filed their
       written statements, stating that they were paying rent to
       Bhonri Devi only. It further appears from the document
       (Exhibit A-13) that Daulalji had raised an objection
       against Bhonri Devi paying the house tax in respect of
       the suit property and that the Municipal Commissioner,
       Jaipur vide order dated 28.03.1957 had observed that
       Bhonri Devi was paying the tax in the past also. An
       appeal against the said order was preferred by Daulalji
       before the Administrator of Municipal Council, Jaipur
       however the same was also rejected vide the order
       dated 28.01.1959. It was observed therein that “In this
       case there is a dispute regarding ownership. Municipal
       Commissioner who is the reversing authority in his
       judgment dated 28.03.1957 held that Bhonri Devi who
       was paying tax to the municipality in the past, should
       pay the tax and for question of title the concerned party
       should seek remedy in the Civil Courts.”
       17. From the said documents it clearly emerges that
       Bhonri Devi was paying the house tax prior to 1956 and
       was collecting the rent from the tenants prior to and after
       1956. Pertinently from the document Exhibit-54, it emerges
       that in 1940 Bhonri Devi, when she was staying with her
       in-laws, had no source of maintenance, and therefore she
       was granted Rs. 2.50 per month by way of maintenance,
       by the Punya Department of the Government. She claiming
       to be a PARDANASHEEN lady had authorised Daulalji
       to collect the said amount of maintenance. The said
       document clearly shows that Bhonri Devi was residing in
       the suit house since 1940. Be that as it may, it was well
       established that Bhonri devi was in possession of the
       suit house before and after the death of Harinarayanji
       in 1953 and had continued to remain in possession
       thereafter and was collecting rent from the tenants
       who were in occupation of part of the suit premises
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                              309

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


           since 1955, till the date of filing of the suit in 1965 by
           the plaintiff Daulalji.
           18. The afore-stated facts and circumstances clearly
           established that Bhonri devi had long settled possession of
           the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-
           existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of
           the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner
           of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said
           Act. Her exclusive possession of suit property after the
           death of Harinarayanji in 1953 i.e., prior to coming into
           force of the said Act in 1956, was not only not disputed
           but was admitted by the plaintiff Daulalji in the plaint itself.
           Her pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of
           the HUF of her husband was also well established. The
           submission of Mr. Jain for the appellants that mere right to
           maintenance would not ipso facto create any charge on the
           property and that for creating legal charge recognising right
           of Hindu women to maintenance required execution of a
           document, device or agreement, cannot be countenanced.
           Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with
           her settled legal possession of the property, would
           be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a
           vestige of right or claim in the property, though no
           document was executed or specific charge was created
           in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in
           the property.
           19. It may be noted that in the Will executed by Harinarayanji
           in favour of Daulalji, there was no mention of the suit
           property. What was stated in the Will was that whatever
           movable and immovable property, which belonged to
           Harinarayanji would be devolved upon Daulalji. It was only
           in the Probate proceedings filed by Daulalji in respect of the
           said Will, he had shown the suit property in the Schedule.
           It is true that the objections raised by Bhonri Devi against
           granting of Probate in favour of Daulalji were not accepted
           by the Probate Court, and the alleged Will executed by
           Harinarayanji in favour of Bhonri Devi was also not proved
           by her in the said proceedings. Nonetheless, in view of her
310                                                        [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of the
          HUF of her husband and in view of her exclusive settled
          possession of the suit property prior to and after the
          commencement of the Act of 1956, the only conclusion
          which could be drawn, would be that Bhonri Devi had
          acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing
          right to maintenance, and that she had held the suit
          property as the full owner and not limited owner by
          virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act of 1956.
          20. As stated earlier, Hindu woman’s right to maintenance
          is a tangible right against the property which flows from
          the spiritual relationship between the husband and the
          wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the
          Shastric Hindu Law, long before the passing of the 1937
          and the 1946 Acts. Where a Hindu widow is found to
          be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF
          property, that itself would create a presumption that
          such property was earmarked for realization of her
          pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly
          when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any
          alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing
          right of maintenance. The word “possessed by” and
          “acquired” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest
          amplitude and include the state of owning a property.
          It is by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, that the
          Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged
          into an absolute right, when such property is possessed by
          her whether acquired before or after the commencement
          of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
20. Thus it is clear from the above observations and findings in the case
    of Munni Devi (supra) that this Court after taking into consideration
    the pre-existing right of Bhonri Devi to maintenance from the estate
    of the HUF of her husband and her exclusive settled possession over
    the suit property concluded that she had acquired the suit property
    in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that she had held
    the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of
    Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           311

           Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


21. Thus, what we are required to adjudicate in the present case is as
    to whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either
    actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff Kailash Chand being
    the legal heir of Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to institute
    a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the
    succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property. In
    this very context, we would like to gainfully refer to the judgments
    of this Court which were relied upon by Shri Puneet Jain, learned
    counsel for the appellant.
22. In the case of Ram Vishal (supra) this Court held as under: -
            “16. In our view, the authority in Raghubar Singh case
            [(1998) 6 SCC 314] can be of no assistance to the
            respondent. As has been held by this Court, a pre-
            existing right is a sine qua non for conferment of a full
            ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession
            Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of
            the property but she must have acquired the property.
            Such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance
            or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance
            or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or by her own
            skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.
            In the present matter, it is nobody’s case that Manki had
            got possession of the 1/4th share in lieu of maintenance
            or in arrears of maintenance. It was also not their case
            that there was a partition of the property and that in such
            partition, she had been given the property. A mere right
            of maintenance without actual acquisition in any manner
            is not sufficient to attract Section 14.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
23. Further, in the case of M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and
    Others v. A. Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others4, this
    Court held as under: -
            “4. This argument of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial
            Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate


4   2023 SCC OnLine SC 1078
312                                                    [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Court as well as by the Second Appellate Court on the
       reasoning that after the death of Sami Vaidyar, his son
       Sukumaran succeeded in the property in year 1942 itself.
       Thereafter, Sukumaran and later the children succeeding
       Sukumaran had the right over the property which
       undisputedly remained in their possession. Section 14 sub-
       Section (1) had no application in this case. The essential
       ingredient of Section 14 sub-Section (1) is possession
       over the property. Admittedly the plaintiff was never
       in possession of the property. The possession was
       always that of the defendant and therefore Section 14
       sub-Section (1) would not be applicable. In Ram Vishal
       (dead) by lrs. v. Jagan Nath. reported in (2004) 9 SCC
       302 the position of possession being a pre-requisite to
       sustain a claim under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the
       1956 Act was confirmed in Para 16 which is quoted below:
            ‘16. In our view, the authority in Raghubar
            Singh case [(1998) 6 SCC 314] can be of no
            assistance to the respondent. As has been held
            by this Court, a pre-existing right is a sine
            qua non for conferment of a full ownership
            under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession
            Act. The Hindu female must not only be
            possessed of the property but she must have
            acquired the property. Such acquisition must
            be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at
            a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears
            of maintenance” or by gift or by her own skill or
            exertion, or by purchase or by prescription…’
       5. As per the law as it existed at their relevant time the
       property which was an agricultural property would devolve
       upon the male child and daughters would get only a
       limited right to maintenance till, they were married and
       the widow would be entitled to maintenance from the
       income from the property till her death or remarriage. As
       per the family Settlement Deed dated 12.03.1938 which
       was relied upon by both the parties, the property in dispute
       was specifically allotted to Sami Vaidyar and his only son
       Sukumaran. Therefore, the widow of Sami Vaidyar i.e.,
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       313

          Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.


           Choyichi will not have any right over the property. The
           findings of all the courts below were that Choyichi was
           never in possession of the property and therefore she
           would not get the right, as claimed by her under Section
           14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”
                                                (emphasis supplied)
24. Seen in the light of the ratio of the above judgments, it is clear that
    for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate
    under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not
    only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the
    property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance
    or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
    maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase
    or by prescription.
25. Even on going through the pleadings in the Revenue suit for partition
    filed by plaintiff Kailash Chand, it is clear that there is not even a
    whisper in the plaint that Smt. Nandkanwarbai or the plaintiff Kailash
    Chand himself were ever in possession of the suit property. As a
    matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that the suit property
    was a joint Hindu family property and defendant-Mukat Lal(appellant
    herein) had consented to give half share of the suit property to the
    plaintiff Kailash Chand on his demand. This assertion was denied
    by defendant-Mukat Lal.
26. In this context, when we consider the effect of the earlier civil suit
    instituted by Smt. Nadkanwarbai(deceased widow), it becomes
    clear that she was never in possession of the suit property because
    the civil suit was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as
    possession and the same was dismissed. This finding of the civil
    Court was never challenged. Since, Smt. Nadkanwarbai was never in
    possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue
    suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of
    the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted
    son, plaintiff Kailash Chand by virtue of inheritance.
27. On close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the learned Single
    Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that
    there is no consideration in these judgments that the predecessor
    of the plaintiff Kailash Chand or the plaintiff himself were ever in
314                                                     [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       possession of the suit property or had acquired the same in the
       manner as indicated in the judgment of M. Sivadasan (supra).
28. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments
    do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained.
29. Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by
    learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21 st July, 2006
    rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set
    aside.
30. Consequently, the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff
    is dismissed.
31. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
32. Decree be prepared accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.


       Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain             Result of the case:
                                                        Appeal allowed.