The Apex Court in the present case revisited the scope & application of Sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“Succession Act”). The present case involves an issue over the ownership of a property & the right of Kailas Chand (“Plaintiff”) being legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of Section 14(1) of Succession Act.
The property in dispute is the unpartitioned Hindu Joint Family Property (“Property”) which was came in the possession of Mukatlal (“Defendant”) through a Will executed by the Defendant’s father (“Will”). The deceased widowed mother of the Plaintiff had filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration of title and possession over the Property contending that the same was joint Hindu family property and the Will allegedly executed by Defendant’s father was illegal. The Court dismissed the suit while recognizing the right of widow only to the extent of receiving maintenance from the property, which was not challenged by her any further. The Defendant on attaining the age of majority preferred an appeal against the aforementioned judgement, which was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge. Being aggrieved by the order of the Senior Civil Judge, the Plaintiff’s mother preferred a Second appeal before the Single Judge of the High Court and during the pendency of the case, she passed away and her legal heir (the Plaintiff) was taken on record. The Single Judge restored the Civil Court’s judgment to the extent of the Plaintiff’s mother’s right to be maintained by the Property. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed Revenue Suit for partition of the Property before the Revenue Court claiming his mother was entitled to a rightful share in the Property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act. The appeal from the said Revenue Suit seeking partition culminated in the impugned judgment.
The Court reiterated that the issue regarding title and possession over the Property was concluded against the Plaintiff’s mother and that she was never in possession of the Property was an admitted position from the record which was never challenged. The Hon’ble Court placed reliance on Munni Devi v. Rajendra, wherein, the widow was actually residing in the suit property during the time the coparcener 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, the Court after taking into consideration the pre-existing right of the female 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.
Regarding the question that whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either actual or legal over the suit property, the Plaintiff being the legal heir of his widowed mother, would beentitled to institute a Revenue Suit for partition of the Property based on the succession rights of the widow on the HUF property, the Hon’ble Court referred to Ram Vishal v. Jagan Nath, wherein, it was held that, 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.
Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated 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.