VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANR.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

                      VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANR.                                   A
                                      v.
           DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

                                MAY 2, 1995

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                              B

        Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sectiol!.< 14(1) and (2).

        Widow-Limited estate for maintenance-Enlargement into absolute
  estate-Death of widow-Daughter-Absolute ownership of
                                                                                 c
        North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901: Section 22.

       Property-Mode of Devolutio~Absence of male lineal descen-
  dants-Held widow is entitled to succeed.

      U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950 : Section 11.                    D
  Widow-Possession of land-Recognition of pre-existing personal law.

         D, a landowner, died leaving behind three sons, N, Kand B. B. died
  leaving behind his widow S. Before his death B separated from his brothers
  and came into possession of 1/3rd share. After the death of B his 1/3rd        E
  share was mutated in favour of his wife S, who remained in possession
  towards her maintenance by operation of section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari
• and Land Reforms Act, 1950. S died leaving behind her daughter C. In
  consolidation proceedings a dispute arose whether C was entitled to 1/3rd
  share in the property. The Consolidation Officer found that the name of S
  was mutated for her maintenance and· the Settlement Officer rejected her       F
  claim for 1/3rd share on the ground that she was not in possession In her
  own right and since B died in 1910 she has no right to share in the property
  left by her husband. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, does
  not apply to the claim made by S. On appeal, the Settlement Officer found
  that She was in possession of the property in her right having succeeded to    G
  B. But her right was one of limited estate. After the Hindu Succession Act,
  1956 had come into force, limited estate was enlarged into iihsolute right.
  As regards other land, having purchased the tenancy right after paying ten
  times the land revenue, she became the owner. Therefore, it was held that
  she was entitled to 1/3rd share. The High Court held that C did not acquire
  any right since S had not succeeded to the estate of her husband B. There-     H
                                      1107
    1108                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                   [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A fore, she was not entitled to separate share and recording or the boldlnp
    in her name was incorrect. Hence these appeals.

           Disposing the appeals, this Court

         HELD : 1. It is settled law that widow is entitled only to limited estate
B   for maintenance. By operation or sub-section (1) or section 14 or the Hindu
    Succession Act, her limited estate enlarged into absolute right as she was
    in possession when the Act came into ro~ce. Thereby she becomes the
    absolute owner or the property. When she died intestate, her daughter C
    became absolute owner as Class-I heir, since she was in possession and
C   enjoyment ortbe land in her own right. The entries in the revenue record
    corroborate the same. Thereby she became the absolute owner.
                                                                (1110-H, llll·A)

          2. It is not in dispute that C bad bequeathed ]/6th share to her
    son-in·law and the remaining share was gifted to her grand son. Thereby
D   they became entitled to the property by virtue or will and girt respectively.
    So far as other land is concerned, section 22 or the North-Western Provin·
    ces Tenancy Act, 1901, provides mode or devolution. In the absence of the
    male lineal descendants, the widow is entitled to succeed to the tenancy
    rights and on her demise the daughter and daughter's son are entitled to
    the succession. Having succeeded to that interest, the tenancy right of C got
E   enlarged into the ownership right by her paying ten times land re\'.enue by
    operation of section 134 of the U.P. Land Reforms Act. Thus, she becomes
    absolute owner In respect of her ]/3rd share in respect of other land.
    Therefore, the question or applicability of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the
    Hindu Succession Act does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was not
F   right in holding that S having had no interest In the property, since her
    husband B died, the respondents bad become owners by intestate devolu·
    tion. [llll·B·D)

           Kameshwar Singh (deceased by L. Rs.) v. Deputy Director of Con-
    solidation, Pratapgarh and Ors., (1983) A.L.J. 699, held inapplicable.
G
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 991-93
    ~~                                                                                ~


           From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.78 of the Allahabad High
H Court in C.M.W.P. No. 937, 936 and 938 of 1973.
                VUAY PAL SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION              1109

                B.D. Sharma for the Appellants.                                     A

                P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar and Ms. Bina Madhavan for the Respon-
       dents.

                The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                    B
                Delay condoned. Substitution allowed in CA 993/79 and 2506/78 ..

             Common question of law arises for decision in these matters. They
       are disposed of altogether.

              Khata Nos. 26, 83 and 111 in Dhanauli village in Meerut District of C
       Uttar Pradesh originally belonged to Devia, Who had three sons, namely,
       Niadar Singh Bhanwar Singh and Kunwar Singh. Niadar Singh died in 1916,
       Bhanwar Singh died in 1910 leaving behind his widow Shiv Devi. Kunwar
       Singh died on December 6, 1912 leaving behind him Ram Phool Singh,
       Richhpal Singh, Narain Singh and Sohan Singh, the appellants in C.A. No. D
       2506/78. Shiv Devi died on September 8, 1956 leaving behind her daughter
       Champi Devi. The appellants in C.A. No. 991-993/79 are son-in-law of
       Champi and Rajendra Pal Singh, grand son of Champi. In the consolidation
       proceedings, a dispute had arisen whether Champi was entitled to 1/3rd
       share in the property left by Devia and inherited by his three sons referred
       to herein before. The mutation entries in the revenue records disclose that E
       the three brothers were in separate possession and enjoyment during their
       lifetime. On their demise, the names of the widow of Niadar Singh, namely,
       Smt. Sarjo Devi and widow of Bhanwar Singh, namely Shiv Devi, were
       entered in the revenue records as possessors of the respective lands held
+ ~-   by Niadar Singh and Bhanwar Singh. It is an admitted fact that the name F
       of Shiv Devi continued to be in the revenue record. The Consolidation
       Officer found that her name was muted in consolation for her maintenance
       and the Settlement Officer rejected her claim for 1/3rd share on the ground
       that she was not in possession and in her own right and since Bhanwar
       Singh died in 1910 she has no right to share in the property left by her
       husband and the sons of Kunwar Singh are entitled to succeed to the estate G
       of Bhanwar Singh. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, does
 -1    not apply to the claim made by Shiv Devi. On appeal, the Settlement
       Officer found that she was in possession of the property in her right having
       succeeded to Bhanwar Singh. But her right is one of limited estate. After
       the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, limited estate was H
    1110                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A enlarged into absolute right in respect of Khata nnmbers 26 and 83; in
  respect of Khata number 111 since it is a tenancy right, having purchased
  the tenancy rights after paying ten times the land revenue, she became the
  owner. Therefore, it was held that she was entitled to l/3rd share. Accord-
  ingly, the land was mutated and her name was recorded to the extent of
B her l/3rd share. The sam~ was confirmed by the Deputy Director Con-
  solidation. Appellants Ram Phool Singh and others, representing the
  branch of Kunwar Singh, filed writ petition in the High Court. The learned
  single Judge allowed the writ petition and maintained the order dated
  October 5, 1978 of the Consolidation Officer holding that Champi did not
  acquire any right since Shiv Devi had not succeeded to the estate of her
C husband Bhanwar Singh. Therefore, she was not entitled to separate share
  and recording of the holdings in her name was incorrect. Thus, these
  appeals by special leave.

           The question is whether Smt. Champi, daughter of Shiv Devi, has
D l/3rd share in the properties left by her father Bhanwar Singh. It would
    appear from the record that after the demise of Devia, the names of three
    sons were mutated in the revenue record and the finding of the Settlement
    Officer is that, though they were in separate possession and enjoyment of
    the properties in their respective shares, since there was no partition by
    metes and bounds, Shiv Devi did not acquire any right. It is not in dispute
E   that Shiv Devi's name continued in the revenue record to the extent of
    l/3rd share held by Bhanwar Singh. This fact establishes that prior to 1910
    Bhanwar Singh obviously separated from his brothers and was in posses-
    sion of his l/3rd share to which he was entitled. Obviously, by family
    arrangement between the brothers, on demise of their father Devia, it was
F   mntated and on demise of her husband, Shiv Devi's name was mutated.
    Even assuming that the contention of the respondents should be accepted,
    she remained in possession towards her maintenance, by operation of s.11
    of the U .P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which recognises the
    right of Shive Devi as widow of Bhanwar Singh. Section 11 is in recognition
    of the pre-existing personal law.
G
        It is settled law that the widow is entitled only to limited estate for
  maintenance. By operation of sub-.(1) of s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act,      \..

  her limited estate enlarged into absolute right as she was in possession
  when the Act came into force. Thereby she becomes the absolute owner
H of the property. When she died intestate, her daughter Champi became
             VIJAY PAL SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION                1111

       absolute owner as Class - I heir, since she was in possession and enjoyment A
       of land in her own right. The entries in the revenue record corroborate
       the same. Thereby she became the absolute owner.

              It is not in dispute that Champi had bequeathed 1/6th share to her
       son-in-law Vijay Pal Singh and remaining share was gifted to her grand son
       Rajendra Pal Singh. Thereby they became entitled to the property by -virtue B-
       of will and gift respectively. So far as Khata No. 111 is concerned, s.22 of
       the North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901, provides mode of devolu-
       tion. Jn the absence of the male lineal descendants, the widow is entitled
       to succeed to the tenancy rights and on her demise the daughter and
       daughter's son are entitled to the succession. Having succeeded to that C
       interest, the tenancy right of Champi got enlarged into the ownership right
       by her paying ten times and revenue by operation of s.134 of the U.P. Land
       Reforms Act. Thus, she became absolute owner in respect of her 1/3rd
       share in Khata No. 111. Therefore, the question of applicability of sub-sec-
       tion (2) of s.4 of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise. The High Court,
       therefore, was not right in holding that Shiv Devi having had no interest in D
       the property, since her husband Bhanwar Singh died in 1911, the respon-
       dents had become owners by intestate devolution. Appeal Nos. 991-993/79
       are accordingly allowed and appellants therein are entitled to 1/3rd share
       in all the three Khata numbers.
                                                                                     E
              Learned counsel for the respondents in CA. Nos. 991-993/79 placed
       reliance on the judgment of the single judge of the High Court reported
       in Kameshwar Singh (deceased by LRs.) v. Deputy Director of Consolida-
       tion, Pratapgarh and others, 1983 AU 699. The ratio therein has no applica-
       tion to the facts in these cases as s.174 of the Land Reforms Act got
       attracted. But here, as stated earlier, Shiv Devi's limited right has been    F
       enlarged into absolute right under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

             Civil Appeals No.991-993/79 are allowed and Civil Appeal No.
       2506/78 is dismissed. No costs.

       T.N.A.                                   C.A. Nos. 991-993179 are allowed.    G
                                                                              and
-.\.                                               C.A. No. 2500/78 is dismissed.



                                                                                     H