SUBA BEWA Vs. GAURANGA CHANDRA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal against a reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. She had sued for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession over 3 decimals of homestead situated within the Kendrapara town. She had also sued for injunction. According to her, her husband late Bhagaban and Mali, the deceased father of the defendant No. 2 were brothers and were living jointly. THEy were owners of 14 decimals of land which was the ancestral property and has been described in the 'Kha' Schedule. Admittedly, the plaintiff became a widow long before 1937, but was living along with Mali and thereafter with the defendant No. 2. She was being maintained from out of the income of the ancestral land. THE defendant No. 2 sold two decimals out of the aforesaid land, to different persons. When the defendant No. 2 fell ill, he found it difficult to maintain the plaintiff. THErefore, in March, 1941, the defendant No. 2 set apart 4 decimals of land out of plots Nos. 173 and 165 for the maintenance of the plaintiff and as evidence of the transaction, on 10th March, 1941, the defendant No. 2 executed an agreement (Ext. 1). A house on the 'Ka' schedule property was given to her and she lived therein raising vegetables and other crops and was maintaining herself out of it. On 26th June, 1944, the plaintiff along with the defendant No. 2 sold a part of it to one Jagu Sahu. THE plaintiff claims that after the Hindu Succession Act came into force she has become an absolute owner with full title. On 18-6-62, the defendant No. 1 on the assertion that he was the purchaser of 2 decimals out of the disputed property on the basis of a transfer from the defenddant No. 2 tried to possess the same. THE plaintiff claims that she has become a full owner under the Act. Even if there was any difficulty in her title she has perfected the same by being in possession for more than the statutory period.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 alone filed his written statement and contested the suit. His case was that the defendant No. 2 was working as an apprentice under a pleader's clerk. THE plaintiff was all along living with her own parents and the defendant No. 2 never maintained her. THE defendant No. 2 sold 6 decimals of land for a consideration of Rs. 1850/- and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 21-4-62. THE defendant No. 2 wanted to build a house on the remaining property. But before he could do so, he continued to possess the house conveyed to the defendant No. 1 under the sale deed of 21-4-62 with the permission of the defendant No. 1. THE plaintiff was never in possession of the property in dispute.

(3.) THE scope of the two sub-sections of Section 14 has been the subject-matter of a series of judicial pronouncements. As has been indicated in the case of Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR 1966 SC 1879 :" THE property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section is clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be noticed that the Explanation to Section 14 (1) sets out the various modes of acquisition of the property by a female Hindu and indicates that the section applies only to property to which the female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however restricted the nature of her interest may be. THE words "as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner" as given in the last portion of sub-section(1) of Section 14 clearly suggest that the legislature intended that the limited ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. In other words Section 14 (1) of the Act contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence of this provision, would have been limited owner of the property, will now become full owner of the property, by virtue of this section. THE object of the section is to extinguish the estate called 'limited estate' or 'widow's estate in Hindu Law and to make a Hindu woman who under the old law would have been only a limited owner a full owner of the property with all powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. THE Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 14 defines the word 'property' as including 'both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise.................." Sub-section (2) of Section 14 also refers to acquisition of property. It is true that the Explanation has not given any exhaustive connotation of the word 'property' but the word 'acquired' used in the Explanation and also in sub-section (2) of Section 14 clearly indicates that the object of the section is to make a Hindu female a full owner of the property which she has already acquired or which she acquires after the enforcement of the Act. It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of a female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere trespasser."