NARAYAN PATRA Vs. TARA PATRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals S. A. 424/64 and S. A. 427/64 arise out of Title Appeals 22/64 and 24/64 respectively disposed of by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur. Those two appeals in the Court of the Subordinate Judge had been filed against the decisions in T. S. 19 of 1959 and T. S. 22 of 1960 on the file of the Munsif of Parlakhimedi respectively. As the parties in both the appeals are the same and common questions of fact and law are involved in both the litigations, these appeals have been heard together and would be governed by this common judgment.

(2.) THE relationship between the parties will appear from the following genealogical table: THE undisputed facts of the case are theses Magata and his brother Damodar were divided from each other and the properties in dispute consisting of A and B schedule houses and C schedule lands admittedly belonged to Magata. Magata died leaving behind him his widow Musi and his three sons, Gopinath, Kalia and Madan. Before 1915, these three brothers also died leaving behind them their widows Rambha, Tara and Lalita respectively. Disputes arose between Musi and her three daughters-in-law and Damodar in 1915. By agreement dated 18-4-1915 (Ext. A in T. S. 19/59) executed by the four widows on one side and Damodar Patra on the other, the disputes were referred to arbitration. THE Arbitrators gave their award dated 21-4-1915 (Ext. 1 in T. S. 19/59). THE salient features of the award are theses:

(3.) ON a consideration of the general principles of the Hindu Law bearing on the subject, and on an examination of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and the judicial pronouncements on the subject, the following conclusions follow: (a) The right of a Hindu widow to be maintained out of the family properties by itself does not confer on her any possessory lien or proprietary right or title in the property of the family. (b) If any rights in the property of her husband or joint family property are acquired by a Hindu widow in lieu of her maintenance, she would obtain the property for the first time under the instrument notwithstanding the fact that the property is transferred to her in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance. (c) If such document under which she obtains the property gives her only a restricted right therein, sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act would apply and any restriction put on the property will have its full effect. (d) If a female Hindu de hors the instrument has an independent right to the property, in other words, if the instrument does not constitute the source or foundation of her right to the property, she takes the property absolutely under sub-section (1) despite the fact that the instrument indicates that a restricted right had been given to her.