Hindu Succession Act| Widow Becomes Absolute Owner Of Property Devolved In Her Favor Upon Husband’s Demise; Partition Not Sine Qua Non: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the Plaintiff, assailing the decision of the Karnataka High Court.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow becomes an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of her husband and the partition is not a sine qua non for continuing to enjoy the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by the prepositus.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the Plaintiff, assailing the decision of the Karnataka High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria stated, “Similarly, by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, Kashibai becomes an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of the prepositus Gangaram. The partition between the Plaintiff and Kashibai, as is well settled, is not a sine qua non for continuing to enjoy the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by the prepositus. Even assuming, without deciding the said argument, that a partition has not occurred in the undivided property, the shares in the coparcenary are subject to fluctuation but not to denial of a right.”
Advocate Anil Katarki represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The propositus Gangaram died in 1949, leaving behind his son Ganapati, the plaintiff, by his first wife. His second wife, Kashibai, had two daughters. The Plaintiff alleged that after the propositus’s demise, he exclusively succeeded to his father’s estate under Hindu law and became the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties. The plaint schedule property consisted of house properties. The relationship of the Plaintiff with the Defendants was not in dispute, and it was stated that they are the Plaintiff’s sisters through Gangaram’s second wife, Kashibai. The Suit was filed because, after Kashibai’s death in 1986, the first Defendant applied for and secured mutation of the suit schedule properties in her name in the municipal records for 1987, pursuant to the registered Will executed by Kashibai in 1984.
The Plaintiff’s case was that upon the demise of propositus in 1949, he became the absolute owner, i.e., to the exclusion of Kashibai and her daughters, Defendants. In view of the change of name in the municipal records, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. While the Suit was pending, the first Defendant executed executed a registered Sale Deed, transferring house properties to the third Defendant. The Trial Court partly decreed the Suit.
The Defendants challenged the Judgment before the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi but the same was dismissed. Through the impugned Judgment, the High Court interfered with the Judgment of the Trial and Appellate Courts and held that Gangaram died intestate, and by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937, Smt. Kashibai and the Plaintiff would have equal shares in the late Gangaram’s properties. It was further held that the Courts below ignored the statutory rights conferred on the deceased Kashibai under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937, and Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, clarified, “The consistent view of this Court is to recognise the right of a Hindu widow as blossoming into an absolute right, except in cases that fall under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1956. Kashibai held her husband’s interest subject to the restrictions of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937. Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 takes away the effect of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937.”
The Bench explained that Section 3(2) confers on the widow, on the principle of devolution and subject to the limitation in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1937, the right of her husband. “This may be termed a confirmation by the Legislature of a right for a person to obtain the property of another on the latter’s death in certain circumstances. It is not that the property will devolve on another only by survivorship or inheritance; it can also be through an Act of the Legislature”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that Kashibai had a right under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1937 and by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, she became an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of the prepositus Gangaram.
Thus, holding that the High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction conformed to the grounds available under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ganapati (Dead) by His Lrs v. Prabhakar & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1033)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Anil Katarki, AOR E. R. Sumathy, Advocate Veena Katarki
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Advocates Shreyas Shanth Mahale, Madhavender Singh, Jahanvi Malik, Anuradha Bhat, AOR Harisha S.R.