RAMCHANDRA SITARAM Vs. SAKHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises a question as to the true interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act 30 of 1956 ). The following genealogy may usefully be referred to for understanding the nature of the dispute between the parties: sampat died on 10-2-1944, leaving him surviving his wife Thunki, his son Laxman and a sister Tulsa. Laxman died on 3-12-1944, and the property of Sampat then devolved upon Thunki. On 23-12-1944 Thunki executed a deed of gift whereby the property in dispute in this litigation was gifted to Tulsa. On 8-6-1945, Thunki contracted remarriage. The plaintiffs who are the uncle and paternal cousins of Sampat filed Civil Suit No. 120-A of 1949 in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Class II, Akola, against Tulsa and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are transferees from her by deeds dated 2-3-1945 and 3-3-1945, for a decree for possession of the property gifted to her by Thunki. It was the plaintiffs' case that the property in suit belonged to Laxman and on his death the property devolved upon Thunki who took a limited estate of a Hindu widow, and on Thunki's remarriage the suit property devolved upon the plaintiffs by inheritance, and the defendants. Tulsa and the alienees from her, could not resist their claim for possession. The trial Court dismissed, the plaintiffs' suit. It was held that on the death of Sampat a half share in the property devolved upon Thunki and the remaining half upon Laxman, and that the property which Thunki inherited from Laxman was not divested by her remarriage. The learned Judge observed that Thunki did not cease to be the mother of Laxman, being related by blood, and the transfer of her life interest under the deed of gift held good during her lifetime, and that only after the death of Thunki the property would devolve upon the remaining heirs living at her death. He, therefore, held that it was not necessary to consider the question whether the plaintiffs were at the date of the suit the next reversioners to the estate of Laxman. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the District Court at Akola. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the trial Judge had made out a new case for the defendants which was not pleaded by them. According to him, the plaintiffs had pleaded and the defendants had accepted that the suit property belonged exclusively to Laxman and on his death it has devolved upon Thunki, and the learned Judge made out a case that half the property devolved upon Thunki and the remaining half had devolved upon Laxman. He then held that by her remarriage Thunki's interest in the property inherited from Laxman was forfeited and the plaintiffs as the heirs and next reversioners to the estate of Laxman could claim the property from the alienees of Thunki, and on that view he passed a decree for possession of the property in suit in favour of the first plaintiff and dismissed the claim of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 who were one degree more remote in relation to the first plaintiff. Against that decree, defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have appealed to this Court.

(2.) IT is contended by Mr. Mangalmurti, who appears on behalf of the appellants, that the learned Additional District Judge was in error in holding that the estate of Thunki was, on remarriage, forfeited. This question is concluded by a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Vithu v. Govinda, ILR 22 Bom 321 (A ). In that case, it was held that under Section 2 of the Widows' Remarriage Act (XV of 1856), a Hindu widow belonging to a caste in which remarriage had been always allowed, who had inherited property from her son, forfeited by remarriage her interest in such property and it devolved upon the next heir of the son. Mr. Mangalmurti contended that this decision was inconsistent with another Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Basappa v. Ragava, ILR 29 Bom 91 (B ). In that case, it was held that a remarried Hindu widow was entitled after remarriage to succeed to the property left by her son by her first husband. At first sight, it may appear somewhat incongruous that when a Hindu widow inherits property from her son and remarries, her interest in the property already inherited is forfeited; but when a Hindu widow remarries, her right to succeed to the property of her son by her first marriage is not forfeited. But it can not be said that the principle of the two judgments is inconsistent, and, in our judgment, the decision in ILR 22 Bom 321 (A), directly applies to the facts of this case and must be accepted as binding. Thunki's interest was, therefore, forfeited by her remarriage and the interest which the alienees from her derived was determined, and the plaintiffs were entitled to claim a decree for possession of the property.

(3.) MR. Mangalmurti then sought to rely upon Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. That section, by the first sub-section, provides: "any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. " mr. Mangalmurti stated that the word "possessed" used in Section 14 meant "inherited" or "obtained". Counsel submitted that if property had devolved by inheritance or otherwise upon a Hindu female before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, her interest therein, if limited springs on application of the Act into an absolute interest retrospectively, i. e. , since the date of acquisition of the interest; and the reversioners have no right to take the property even if the erstwhile limited interest is determined before the commencement of the Act, We are unable to accept that contention. The Legislature appears advisedly to have used the expression "possessed" as qualifying the property of a Hindu female and we will not be justified, having regard to the context, in substituting the word "possessed" in Section 14 by "inherited" or "succeeded to" or "obtained". Indisputably the Act has a limited retrospective operation. On the commencement of the Act property possessed by a Hindu female is by the operation of the Act to be regarded as of her absolute ownership even if her title in its inception was restricted. But Section 14 applies to property possessed by a Hindu female when the Act commences, or thereafter. If before the commencement of the Act the property is transferred, it is not in law possessed by her and Section 14 will have no application to that property. That is clear from the use of the expression "shall be held by her as full owner. " In any event, there is nothing in Section 14 which revives the estate of a limited owner determined before the commencement of the Act by death, actual or civil. Section 14 in terms purports to enlarge the estate in property possessed by a Hindu female and enables the female to hold the property as a full owner; it does not purport to enlarge an estate determined before the commencement of the Act or to enlarge the estate conveyed to alienees by the limited owner before that date.