DAGADU BALU Vs. NAMDEO RAKHMAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises a question as to the interpretation of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. Although the Act is a very short one, all questions of interpretation of that Act usually raise serious difficulties. Some Judges have observed that the provisions of the Act are obscure, and more charitable minded Judges have said that the drafting of the Act is not very happy.

(2.) The question that arises for our consideration arises on these facts. Rakhmaji and Krishna were two brothers who constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family. Krishnaji died on 25-9-1945, leaving a widow who is defendant No. 2 and a daughter who is defendant No. 3, and defendant No. 1 is the son of Rakhmaji. On 3-9-1946, defendant No. 2 sold her interest in the joint family property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000, and the plaintiff filed the suit from which this appeal arises for partition. The question that has been debated before us is whether under the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act a widow in a joint family has a right to alienate the share which her husband had in the property and which has devolved upon her by reason of the provisions of that Act.

(3.) Now, in construing this Act what has got to be borne in mind is that it was an Act ameliorative in character and intended to carry out an important social reform. Its express intention was to give better rights to women in respect of property and therefore the various provisions of the Act must be construed in the light of the intention which the Legislature had in placing this piece of legislation upon the statute book. We are concerned in this case with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 and that provides: