JAGANNATHAN PILLAI Vs. KUNJITHAPADAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the same law1 in an identical fact-situation, a Hindu widow who has inherited property in Orissa or Andhra Pradesh would be a 'limited owner' and would not become an 'absolute owner' thereof whereas if she has inherited property in Madras, Punjab, Bombay or Gujarat she would become an 'absolute owner'. That is to say, in a situation where a Hindu widow regains possession of a property (in which she had a limited ownership) subsequent to the commencement of the Act2upon the retransfer of the very same property to her by the transferee in whose favour she had transferred it prior to the commencement of the Act. This incongruous situation has arisen because of an interpretation and application of Section 14(1)3 of the Hindu Succession Act CS(Act) in the context of the aforesaid fact- situation the High Courts of Orissa1 and Andhra Pradesh2 have proclaimed that she would be only a 'limited owner' of such property on such retransfer whereas the High Courts of Madras3, Punjab4, Bombay5 and Gujarat6 have taken a contrary view and have pronounced that she would become an 'absolute owner' of such a property in the aforesaid situation. We have therefore to undertake this exercise to remove the unaesthetic wrinkles from the face of law to ensure that a Hindu widow has the same rights under the same law regardless of the fact as to whether her property is situated within the jurisdiction of one High Court or the other.

(2.) The appellant who unsuccessfully canvassed before the High Court of Madras that the view propounded by the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts deserved to be preferred to the view taken by the other four High Courts, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal by a Certificate granted under Article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution of India that the matter involves a substantial question of law.

(3.) The typical facts in the backdrop of which the problem has to be viewed are :-