Hindu Law — Female Hindu — Absolute ownership — Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Hindu woman in possession of property prior to 1956 — Enlargement of limited estate — Widow’s estate — Absolute ownership — Effect of repeal of Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 — Applicability after 1956 — Held, widow becomes full owner — Gift executed valid.
Where the widow was in possession of the estate of her deceased husband and son from the year 1941 onwards and continued in possession till after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited estate stood enlarged into an absolute estate by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act.
Application of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 after 1956 is barred in view of Sections 4 and 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Gift deeds executed by such female Hindu after commencement of the Act are valid and binding.
(Paras 44–49, 55–59)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 4, 14(1) — Overriding effect
Repealed statute — Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 — Cannot be applied after 1956 — Erroneous reliance by appellate court — Perversity.
Once the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, and particularly after repeal under Section 31, the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 stood excluded.
Application of the repealed enactment by the First Appellate Court was legally impermissible and vitiated the judgment.
(Paras 39–43, 47–49)
Hindu Law — Succession — Reversion — Doctrine of reversion — Not applicable after Section 14(1)
Where the female Hindu had become full owner under Section 14(1), the doctrine of reversion stands extinguished and the property does not revert to the heirs of the last male holder.
Claim of reversioners after death of widow held not maintainable.
(Paras 49–55)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal
Scope — Substantial question of law — Interference permissible where findings are perverse or based on repealed statute.
High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings of the First Appellate Court are:
(i) contrary to statutory provisions,
(ii) contrary to binding precedents, or
(iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence.
Where the appellate court reversed a well-reasoned trial court decree by applying a repealed statute, the judgment suffers from perversity warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
(Paras 16–18, 39–40, 60)
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 65
Suit for possession — Knowledge of adverse possession — Limitation begins from date of hostile possession — Admissions binding.
Where plaintiffs admitted:
• execution of registered gift deeds in 1983,
• possession of defendants from 1984–1988 onwards,
• mutation and payment of land revenue by defendants,
and suit for possession was filed in 2001, the claim stood barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
(Paras 20–23)
Evidence Act — Admissions — Binding effect
Admissions of plaintiffs in cross-examination regarding possession, mutation, payment of land revenue, execution of gift deeds, and long enjoyment by defendants are substantive evidence and decisive against the plaintiffs’ claim.
(Paras 21–23, 30, 46)
Declaratory Suit — Burden of proof
Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title — Weakness of defendant’s case irrelevant.
In suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the burden lies entirely on the plaintiff to establish title by cogent evidence.
Failure to prove own title results in dismissal, irrespective of defects in the defendant’s case.
(Paras 26–33)
Civil Suit — Declaration and Possession — Absence of documents
Where plaintiffs failed to file even a single document to establish title or possession, and relied solely on oral evidence contradicted by admissions, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(Paras 29–33)
Gift Deed — Registered settlement — Proof
Registered gift deeds accepted by donees, followed by delivery of possession, mutation in revenue records, issuance of pattadar passbooks and long possession constitute valid transfer of title.
(Paras 34–35)
Pleadings — Parties bound by pleadings
Plaintiffs having pleaded exclusive possession of widow from 1941 till her death cannot subsequently contend joint family or coparcenary rights.
(Paras 37–38)
Contempt of Courts Act — Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC
No injunction order — No undertaking by contemnors — Contempt not maintainable.
Where no prohibitory order restraining construction was passed and no undertaking was given by alleged contemnors, contempt proceedings are not maintainable.
On setting aside the appellate decree, no executable order survived.
Contempt case liable to be closed.
(Paras 64–68)
RATIO DECIDENDI
Property possessed by a female Hindu, even if originally held as a widow’s estate, becomes her absolute property by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
After commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 cannot be applied, and any judgment founded on the repealed statute is legally perverse.
A female Hindu who becomes absolute owner under Section 14(1) is fully competent to alienate the property by gift, sale, or settlement without consent of reversioners.
In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title; admissions and absence of documentary proof are fatal.
Where long possession under registered gift deeds is admitted and suit is instituted beyond twelve years, the claim is barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Second appellate interference is justified where the First Appellate Court reverses a trial court decree by applying repealed law, ignoring statutory mandate and binding precedent.
