High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} SA 813.13F.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADSECOND APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2013Kailas s/o. Prabhakar Shinde,Age 32 years, occ. Agril,R/o. Gikulwadi (Kharpudi)Tq. and Dist. Jalna... APPELLANTVERSUS1.Indubai w/o. Kailas Shinde,Age 28 years Occ. Household,R/o. Nikalak (Akola) Tq. Badnapur,Dist. Jalna.2.Bapurshabe s/o. Nivrutirao Barkad,Age 42 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Police Quarters, Near Police Complex,Bus stand Road, New Jalna, Dist. Jalna.. RESPONDENTS.Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for applicantsAppeal abated against respondent No.1.Mr. N.V. Gaware, alongwith Mr. S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 24.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.02.2025 J U D G M E N T :-The appellant/original plaintiff impugns the judgment and {2} SA 813.13F.odtdecree dated 18.07.2013 passed by District Judge, Jalna in Regular CivilAppeal no. 205 of 2009, thereby upholding the judgment and decreedated 30.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Jalna, in Special Civil SuitNo. 78 of 2007, thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant seekingcancellation of sale deed, declaration of ownership and perpetualinjunction.2.For sake of convenience, parties are referred as per theiroriginal status in the suit.3.The Appellant/plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 78 of2007 contending that defendant No.1 Indubai was his legally weddedwife. After solemnization of marriage on 10.5.1997, she happily residedwith him for about 8 years. Thereafter, some dispute erupted betweenthem eventually, she started residing with her parents. She institutedproceeding for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. againsthim. The dispute was amicably resolved by intervention of friends.Defendant No.1 resumed matrimonial life with him. In turn, he executeda registered management deed dated 9.3.2006 in her favour giving herright to manage suit property bearing Gat No. 281, admeasuring 1Hectare 20 R situated at Kapurwadi. A lifetime interest was created inher favour with restriction from creating third party interest. Howeverwithin a short span, defendant again left matrimonial home. Thereafter,she suffered mental disorder and was under treatment of a psychiatrist atAurangabad. Taking disadvantage of her mental health, her brother, whowas serving in Police Department, made her to execute a sale deed dated4.6.2007 in respect of suit property in favour of defendant No.2.According to plaintiff, sale deed dated 4.6.2007 is invalid as Defendant {3} SA 813.13F.odtNo.1 had neither authority to transfer the suit property nor was she in fitstate of mind to make valid disposition.4.Defendants resisted suit contending that suit property washanded over to defendant No.1 under Management deed in lieu ofmaintenance. She was in possession of suit property as exclusive owner.Plaintiff’s ill-treatment made her to leave the matrimonial home. She hadno source of income to maintain herself. Therefore, she sold out theproperty to defendant No.2 for valuable consideration. Defendant No.2has acquired ownership and possession in pursuance to the sale deed.5.The trial court framed issues based on pleadings of theparties and after hearing them, concluded that the suit property wasgiven in lieu of maintenance to the defendant No.1. Consequently, shehad acquired absolute ownership over the suit property and dispositionof property by her in favour of defendant No.2 is valid.6.Plaintiff assailed decision of trial court in appeal before theDistrict Judge, Jalna, who concurred with the judgment and decreepassed by trial court, eventually dismissed the appeal.7.Mr. B.R. Kedar, learned advocate appearing for the appellantsubmits that judgments and decrees passed by the courts below areperverse, based on misreading/misinterpretation of the ManagementDeed dated 9.3.2006. By inviting attention of this court to the contentsof the management deed, Mr. Kedar would submit that a restricted rightwas created in favour of defendant No.1 to enjoy the ownership andpossession of the property for maintenance with further rider to not to {4} SA 813.13F.odtcreate third party interest in the property. He would submit that suitproperty was to revert back to plaintiff and his legal heirs afterdefendant's lifetime enjoyment. Defendant No.1 could have securedabsolute ownership only if any instance of ill-treatment towardsdefendant No.1 erupts. According to Mr. Kedar, there is nothing onrecord to show that condition precedent for conferment of ownership infavour of defendant No.1 has been ever complied. In support of hiscontentions, he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in the case ofGaddam Ramakrishana Reddi and others vs. Gaddam Rami Reddi 2011AIR (SC) 179, so also judgment in the matter Shivdeo Kaur vs. R.S.Grewal 2013 (4) SCC 636.8.Per contra, Mr. Nitin Gaware learned Advocate appearing forthe respondent No.2 ( Purchaser) would invite attention of this court toSection 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to contend that suit property wasto be possessed by defendant No.1 in lieu of maintenance. Life interestwas created in her favour. Plaintiff being husband was under obligationto maintain his wife. The Management Deed conferred existing right ofmaintenance in favour of defendant wife. Eventually, she was put intopossession acknowledging her absolute right. She transferred suitproperty in favour of defendant No.2 to satisfy her needs since plaintifffailed to maintain her. According to him, condition restricting unfetteredright of defendant No.1 to enjoy property will have to be ignored in viewof law declared by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the caseof V. Tulsamma and others Vs. Shesha Reddi (dead) AIR 1976 SC 2198.He also places his reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Courtin the case or Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) through LRs vs.Kallakuri Kamaraju and others (Civil Apeal No. 5389 of 2012) {5} SA 813.13F.odtHe would submit that the legal position, as espoused in thecase of V. Tulsamma (supra) still holds field. Consequently, defendantno.1 had absolute right over the suit property and disposition made byher in favour of defendant No.2 under registered sale deed dated4.6.2007 was legal and valid.9.I have considered submissions advanced by learnedadvocates appearing for respective parties, Admittedly, defendant No.1is legally wedded wife of plaintiff. Plaintiff executed registered Deed ofManagement dated 9.3.2006, gist of which connotes thus :-"The suit land is transferred in favour of defendant wifewithout consideration for the purpose of maintenance. Thewife is entitled to take produce out of land and utilize thesame for her maintenance. The land is permanently given toand possession is handed over to defendant wife. The wifeshall not have right to transfer the land or create third partyinterest. Wife shall be entitled to enjoy the property asowner during her lifetime. Thereafter, ownership of landwould be reverted back to plaintiff and his legal heirs and noone else would have any right on it. Wife shall be entitled toenjoy the property as owner without any interruption fromthe plaintiff husband. The plaintiff is taking wife forcohabitation. In case he fails to maintain good behaviour orcauses ill-treatment to wife, the transfer of land shall betreated as absolute. The defendant wife shall be entitle tomutate her name in the revenue record of the suit property." {6} SA 813.13F.odt10.In the light of aforesaid stipulations, question that falls forconsideration before this Court, is as to whether defendant had acquiredabsolute right in the suit property with right of disposition or create thirdparty interest therein.11.The legal position on the aforesaid aspect has beencrystallized in the case of V. Tulsamma and others Vs. Shesha Reddi(supra). Para.62 reads thus :-"We would now like to summarise the legal conclusions which wehave reached after an exhaustive considerations of the authoritiesmentioned above; on the question of law involved in this appealas to the interpretation of s. 14(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956.These conclusions may be stated thus:(1) The Hindu female's right to maintenance is not an emptyformality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter ofgrace and generosity, but is a tangible right against propertywhich flows from the spiritual relationship between thehusband and the wife and is recognised and enjoined by pureShastric Hindu Law and has been strongly stressed even bythe earlier Hindu jurists starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu.Such a right may not be a right to property but it is a rightagainst property and the husband has a personal obligation tomaintain his wife and if he or the family has property, thefemale has the legal right to be maintained therefrom. If acharge is created for the maintenance of a female, the saidright becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate, evenwithout a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognisingsuch a right does not confer any new title but merely endorsesor confirms the pre-existing rights.(2) Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have beencouched in the widest possible terms. and must be liberallyconstrued in favour of the females so as to advance the objectof the 1956 Act and promote the socio-economic ends, sought {7} SA 813.13F.odtto be achieved by this long needed legislation. (3) Sub-section(2) of s. 14 is in the nature of a proviso and has a field of itsown without interfering with the operation of s.14(1) materially. The proviso. should not be construed in amanner so as to destroy the effect of the main provision or theprotection granted by s. 14(1) or in a way so as to becometotally inconsistent with the main provision.(4) Sub-section (2) of section14 applies to instruments, decrees,awards, gifts etc. which create independent and new titles infavour of the females for the first time and has no applicationwhere the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm,endorse, declare or recognise preexisting rights. In such cases arestricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and s.14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, aninstrument merely de- clares or recognises a pre-existing right,such as a claim to maintenance or partition or share to which thefemale is entitled, the sub-section has absolutely no applicationand the female's limited interest would automatically be en-larged into. an absolute one by force of s. 14(1) and therestrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to beignored. Thus where a property is allotted or trans- ferred to afemale in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, theinstrument is taken out of the ambit of sub- s. (2) and would begoverned by s. 14(1) despite any re- strictions placed on thepowers of the transferee. (5) The use of express terms like"property acquired by a female Hindu at a partition", "or in lieu ofmaintenance""or arrears of maintenance" etc. in the Explanationto s. 14(1) clearly makes sub-s. (2) inapplicable to these catego-ries which have been expressly excepted from the operation ofsub-s. (2).(6) The words "possessed by" used by the Legislature in s.14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include thestate of owning a property even though the owner is not inactual or physical possession of the same: Thus, where awidow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decreebefore or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed buthad not been given actual possession under a final decree, theproperty would be deemed to be possessed by her and byforce of s. 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in theproperty. It is equally well settled that the possession of thewidow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, rightor title, because the section does not contemplate thepossession of any rank trespasser with- out any right or title. {8} SA 813.13F.odt(7) That the words "restricted estate" used in s. 4(2) are widerthan limited interest as indicated in s. 14(1) and they includenot only limited interest, but also. any other kind of limitationthat may be placed on the transferee.12.In yet another judgment, in case of Kallakuri (supra) inreference to the judgment in case of Magatmal Vs. Punni Devi (1995) 6SCC 88, the Supreme Court observed in para.10 as under :-“What flows from the above is that the Hindu Women's right tomaintenance is not by virtue of statute, but is found in ShastricHindu law; maintenance has to be proper, appropriate andadequate, giving the woman so maintained the ability to continueto live the life, similar to what she once lived; and that the veryright to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable theripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession ofthe property in lieu of maintenance”.13.In both the aforesaid cases, the Honourable Supreme Courtheld that in case, pre-existing right is conferred upon the woman, shewould acquire an absolute right under Section 14(1) of the HinduSuccession Act. Section 14(2) would have no application in such cases.Further, restriction imposed upon the right to enjoy the property as fullowner under any instrument or decree creating right in her favour willhave to be ignored. The restriction contemplated under sub-clause 2 ofsection 14 would have no operation where the pre-existing right, such as,claim of maintenance or partition or share to which the family member isentitled has been created, the limited interest would automatically beenlarged into absolute one by force of Section 14(1). The restriction ifany placed under document would have to be ignored. {9} SA 813.13F.odt14.In present case, undisputedly, the limited right was createdin favour of defendant No.1 in lieu of maintenance. Since the right tomaintenance is recognized as pre-existing right, limited right created infavour of defendant No.1 under management deed would automaticallyget enlarged to absolute right by operation of Sub-Section (1) of Section14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 15.Mr. Kedar, learned advocate appearing for the appellantheavily relied on judgment of Supreme Court in case of GaddamSheshamma (supra). In that case, one G. Kela Reddi had executedregistered deed of gift giving limited right in his share of property to hiswife Gaddam Sheshamma without right of alienation and managementwas vested in G. Rami Reddi. In the context of aforesaid facts, thequestion that arose for consideration, whether, Gaddam Sheshamma hadabsolute right in the property. The Court held that the right created infavour of Sheshamma was not in lieu of her maintenance, as she wasalready managing the property in question and it was the Donee's desirethat suit property should ultimately go to his son Romi Reddi andtherefore, right of Sheshamma was held to be governed by Sub-Section(2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the law laiddown in the case of Gaddam would not assist the appellant to advancehis cause. Similarly, another judgment in case of Shivdeo Kaur(supra),Honourable Supreme Court found that if the properties acquired byHindu female by will or gift giving her only life interest that wouldremain same even after commencement of the Act of 1956. In that case,it is held that disposition of the property in favour of daughter under thewill would not constitute pre-existing right.
Decision
{10} SA 813.13F.odt16.Before parting, it is desirable to take note of the recentjudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tejbhan (D) through LRSand others vs. Ram Kishan through LRs and others (2024) SCC onlineSC 3661, wherein, the Bench of the Supreme Court felt it necessary tomake reference to the larger Bench for re-considering principles laiddown in various judgments of the Supreme Court for restating the law oninterplay between sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the HinduSuccession Act. However, in that case, the issue involved pertains toright crated in favour of wife under a will. The life interest in favour ofwife in lieu of maintenance is not doubted and still governed byexposition in V. Tulsamma (supra).17.In result, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.Appeal sans merit, hence dismissed. Civil Application, if any, standsdisposed of.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] grt/-