VAIJANATH AND ORS.versusGURAMMA AND ANR.

A                            VAIJANA TH AND ORS.
                                          v.
                             GURAMMA AND ANR.

                               NOVEMBER !8, 1998

B            [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]


          Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937-S. 1(3)-Hyderabad
    (Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952-S. 3-Schedule-Annexures 'A',
    'B', 'C', 'D'and'F'.
c
         Hyderabad Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural
    Land) Act, 1954 : Section 2.

        Constitution of India, 1950: Seventh schedule-Concurrent List-Entry
    5-Scope of-No exclusion of Agricultural lands from Entry 5.
D
         Hindu Law-State of Hyderabad-Joint Family Property-Partition-
   Widow-Given a share in the agricultural lands belonging to the joint
  family-Contention that under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as
  applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated,
   the widow was not entitled to a share in the joint family agricultural lands
E as agricultural lands are excluded from the provisions of the Hindu Women's
   Right to Property Act, 1937-Rejection by High Court Appeal before Supreme
   Court-Held-The Legislature of the State of Hyderabad was competent to
  enact a Legislation which dealt with intestacy and succession relating to
  Joint Family property including agricultural land-The language of the
p Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 as enacted in the State of
   Hyderabad is as general as the Original Act-The words 'Property' as well
  as 'interest in Joint Family Property' are wide enough to cover agricultural
   land~ a/so-Therefore, on an interpretation of the Hindu Women's Right to
   Property Act, 1937 as enacted by the State of Hyderabad, the Act covers
   agricultural lands-The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act is a remedial
G Act seeking to mitigate hardships of a widow regarding inheritance under            ~
   the Hindu Law prior to the enactment of the 1937 Act: and it ought to receive
   a beneficial interpretation-The beneficial interpretation in the present context
   would clearly cover agricultural lands under the word 'property'.

          Contention that prior to the enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women's
H                                         36
                         VAIJANATH v. GURAMMA                                37

Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, the Hindu            A
 Women's Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952 would not apply to
 agricultural land, has rightly been negatived by High Court-A subsequent
Act cannot be used to interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this
fashion.

     In: Re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937, AIR (1941) Federal            B
Court 72, held inapplicable.

      Words and Phrases

      Property-meaning of
                                                                                    c
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4379of1996.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.93 of the Bombay High Court
in S.A. No. 266 of 1985.

     S.V. Deshpande, Pramit Saxena, Suhas and Anacleto Viegas for the               D
Appellants.

      C.G. Solshe for Rakesh K. Sharma for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                    E
      The application to bring on record Respondent No.2 also as legal
representative of deceased Respondent No. 1 is allowed.

      The !st respondent was the widow of one Ramshetti who died some
time in July, 1954. The 2nd respondent is her daughter. Ramshetti and his
brother Veerappa, during their life time constituted a joint family which owned,    F
inter alia, agricultural land. The present appellants are the widow, sons and
daughters of Veerappa.

       On a partition of the joint family property which was ordered in
proceedings arising pursuant to regular Suit No. 88/78 for partition and            G
possession, the 1st respondent as widow of Ramshetti has been given a share
in the agricultural lands belonging to the joint family. The appellants contended
that under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as applied in the
erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated, the !st respondent
being the widow of deceased Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share in the
joint family agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are excluded from the           H
    38                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   provisions cf the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. This contention
    has been n1:gatived by the High Court. Hence the present appeal has been
    filed by the heirs of Veerappa.

          On the date of death of Ramshetti in July, 1954, the lands were situated
B   in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. Under the Hyderabad (Application of
    Central Acts) Act, 1952 which received assent of the President on 22nd of
    July, 1953, certain Central Acts affecting Hindu and Muslim laws were applied
    to the State of Hyderabad. One of the laws so applied to the State of
    Hyderabad was the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937.

C          Scheme 3 of the Hyderabad (Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952,
    hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Act of 1952, stated that Acts specified
    therein shall, with effect from the appointed day, extend to and be in force
    in the whole of the State of Hyderabad subject to the modification mentioned
    in the Schedule and shall accordingly be in force in the said State with effect
    from the said date in the forms respectively specified in Annexures 'A', 'B',
D   'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' to the Schedule. In the Schedule to the said Act the
    modificati·on to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 is set out.
    The only modification is, "For sub-section (2) of Section 1, the following sub-
    section shall be substituted, "It extends to the whole of the State of
    Hyderabad." Annexure 'C' to the said Hyderabad Act of 1952 sets out the
E   text of the, Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 as modified by the
    aforesaid Schedule and applicable in the State of Hyderabad. The entire text
    of the Ac:t remains the same with the modification of sub-section (2) of
    Section 1 as aforesaid. Under sub-section (3) of the said Hindu Women's
    Right to Property Act, 193 7 when a Hindu governed by any school other than
    Dayabhag;a School of Hindu Law or a customary law, dies intestate having
F   at the tim1: of his death an interest in a Hindu Joint Family Property, his widow
    shall havt: in the property the same interest as he himself had, subject to sub-
    section (3). Under sub-section (3) the interest devolving on a Hindu widow
    shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman's Estate. There is no
    definition of property under the Hin du Women's Rights to Property Act, I 93 7.
G   Therefore, the term property has to be given its ordinary meaning which
    would include agricultural land also.

          However, the appellants rely upon a decision of the Federal Court in Re:
    Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, (I 93 7) AIR I 94 I Federal Court page
    72 under which the validity of the said Original Act which had been enacted
H   by the Central Legislature was considered by the Federal Court. Examining the
                                 VAIJANATH v. GURAMMA                           39

 question of legislative competence of the Central Legislature to enact in 1937 A
 the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act the Federal Court examined the
 legislative entries under the Government oflndia Act, 1935. It held that under ·
 Entry 21 of List II which applied to the Provincial Legislatures, laws wiih
  respect to devolution of agricultural land could be enacted only by the
  Provincial Legislature. It also noted that in List IIJ, that is to say, the Concurrent
  List, Entry 7 was "wills, intestacy and succession save and except agricultural . B
  land". Th.e Federal Court observed that while the Act purports to deal in quite
  general terms with 'property' or 'separate property' ofa Hindu dying intestate
  or his interest in joint family property, it does not distinguish between
  agricultural land and other property and, therefore, is not limited in terms to
_ the latter. However, looking to the competencey of the Central Legislature to C
  enact such a law the word 'property' will have to be suitably construed.
  "When legislature with limited and restricted powers makes use of such a
  word of such a wide and general import, the presumption must surely be that
  it is using it with reference to that kind of property with respect to which it
  is competent to legislate and to no other." The Federal Court, therefore,
  restricted the application of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 D
  by excluding agricultural lanch from its purview.
                 ,   -   .   •                '   1   -       .   '   .

        The same constraint do not apply to the said Hyderabad Act of 1952
  passed by the legislature of the State of Hyderabad, which has received the.
  assent of the President on 22nd ofJuly, 1953. The relevant Legislative entries
  under .the Constitutio.n of India are somewhat different.. Entri, 5 in the E
  Concurrent List, being List IIJ in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, is as
  follows:                          '='
                                  ·-~~   --
·· '• - ·   "Marrl~g~-and divorce; infants .and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy
            and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of     F
            which parties in judicial proceedings· were immediately before the
            commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law."

         There is no exclusion of agricultural lands from Entry 5 which covers
 . wills, intestacy and succession as also joint' family and partition. Although
   Entry 6 of the Concurrent List refers to transfer of property other than G
   agricultural land; agriculture as well as land including transfer and alienation
   of agricultural
             '     _.
                      land
                        -
                           are
                           ,
                               placed under. Entries 14 ' and 18 of the State List.
                                                          '                    . '
   Therefore, it is quite apparent that the Legislatu_re of the. State of Hyderabad
   was competent to enact a Legislation which. dealt with intestacy and
 , succession relating to Joint Family Property including agricultural land. The
· language of the Hindu Women's Right_ to Property A~t, 1937 as enacted in. H
    40                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   the State of Hyderabad is as general as the Original Act. The words 'property'
    as well as 'interest in Joint Family Property' are wide enough to cover
    agricultural lands also. Therefore, on an interpretation of the Hindu Women's
    Right to Property Act, 193 7 as enacted by the State of Hyderabad, the Act
    covers agricultural lands. As the Federal Court has noted in the above
B   judgment, the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act is a remedial Act seeking
    to mitigate hardships of a widow regarding inheritance under the Hindu Law
    prior to the enactment of the 1937 Act; and it ought to receive a beneficial
    interpretation. The beneficial interpretation in the present context would clearly
    cover agricultural lands under the word 'property'. This Act also received the
    assent of the President under Article 254(2) and, therefore, it will prevail.
c
           The appellants, however, rely upon a subsequent Act passed by the
    State of Hyderabad, namely, Hyderabad Hindu Women's Rights to Property
    (Extension to Agricultural Land) Act, 1954. Section 2 of the said Act provides
    that "term 'property' in the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act as in force
    in the State of Hyderabad shall include agricultural land." This Act received
D   the assent of the President on 15th October, 1954 and was published in the
    State Gazette dated 22nd of October, 1954. It was submitted that prior to the
    enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to
    Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as
    enacted in 1952 would not apply to agricultural land. The High Court has
E   rightly negatived this contention. A subsequent Act cannot be used to
    interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this fashion. The language
    of the earlier Act is wide enough to cover agricultural land also. In the entire
    Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, there is nothing which would
    indicate that the Act does not apply to agricultural land. The word 'property'
    is a gene::al term which covers all kinds of property, including agricultural
F   land. A restricted interpretation was given to the original Hindu Women's
    Right to Property Act, 1937 enacted by the then Central Legislature, entirely
    because of the legislative entries in the Government of India Act, 1935, which       ,
    excluded the legislative competence of the Central Legislature over agricultural
    lands. Such is notthe case in respect of the Hindu Women's Right to Property
G   Act, 1937, as enacted by the State Legislature of the State of Hyderabad. The
    ratio of the Federal Court judgment, therefore, would not apply. There is,
    therefore, no substance in the contention that the subsequent Act of 1954
    restricted the application of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937
    brought into force by the earlier Hyderabad Act of 1952. As is pointed out
    by the High Court, the Act of 1954 was enacted by way of abundant caution,
H   to make sure that the agricultural lands were not considered as excluded from
                              VAIJANATH v. GURAMMA                              41
      the scope of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952.        A
     ·The second Act is, therefore, clarificatory.

            The High Court has dealt at length with various decisions of this Court
      and other Court on the question of interpretation of the said statute. Since
      we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High
      Court, we are not again examining the cases referred to by the High Court.      B
      We, therefore, affirm the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High
      Court and dismiss this appeal. There will, however, be no order as to costs .
.,
      T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.