CHINTI Vs. DAULTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred by Anctley, J. for answer to this Bench :-

(2.) We may now read section 14 of the Act :-

(3.) It is obvious that the language used in this section, particularly in the Explanation, is of the widest amplitude. The anomaly which prevented the learned Judicial Commissioner from conferring on the female donee full rights of ownership, is inherent in section 14 itself and was noticed by a Bench of the Punjab High Court as far back as 1961 in Kaur Singh Gajjan Singh v. Jaggar Singh Kehur Singh. It was observed there that a Hindu male holder of ancestral immovable property governed by the Punjab customary law was still subject to restrictions on his power of disposition, whereas a Hindu female must be held to be full owner of any property possessed by her, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. But this anomaly could only be remedied by the Parliament and not by judicial interpretation against the Hindu females.