JAGAT SINGH Vs. TEJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the death of one Dalipa, Ms widow Smt. . Uttam Devi Inherited her husband's estate in the year 1938. On 18th of February, 1938, she gifted the entire estate to Daulat Singh and Charan Singh in equal shares. This gift was challenged on 29th of June, 1939, by reversioners by means of usual declaratory decree under Customary Law to the effect that the gift aforesaid will not affect their reversionary rights. The suit abovementioned was decreed on 17th of september, 1939. Some 20 years thereafter, that is on 3rd of June, 1959, Daulat Singh, one of the donees, made a gift back to the widow Smt. . Uttam Devi of one-half share of the property which had originally been gifted to him by her. On 8th of june. 1959. Smt. Uttam Devi sold the property so resifted to her to Hazara Singh and Teja Singh (copv exhibit D. 1 ). On 20th of October. 1959, Smt. Uttam Devi died. On 13th of March, 1961. Jagat Singh and others claiming to be the next reversioners and heirs of Dalipa, filed a suit for possession of the entire land which formed the subject-matter of 1938 gift The suit was resisted by the vendees qua one-half which had been sold to them by Smt. . Uttam Devi in 1959. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and this decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court but in Regular Second Appeal No. 875 of 1963 filed by vendees the learned single Judge reversed the judgment and the decree of the Courts below and held that Smt. Uttam. Devi qua the one-half of the property gifted back to her on 3rd of june. 1959, became a full owner by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, she could convey a good title to the vendees. Jagat Singh etc. filed this Letters Patent Appeal and the Bench consisting of Mehar Singh, C. J. and H. R. Sodhi, J. after hearing the parties referred the matter to be decided by a Full Bench in view of the important point of law involved and that is how the matter is before us.

(2.) THERE can be no manner of doubt that If Smt. . Uttam Devi had not gifted the property now in dispute to Daulat Singh in the year 1938 and she was in possession thereof in her capacity as a widow of her husband Dalipa, then on the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, her interest in the property would have got enlarged into an absolute estate. It is now well settled and as has been discussed at length by the learned Single judge, the estate of a widow under the Mitakshara Hindu Law and under the punjab Agricultural Custom, prior to the enforcement of the Act was not a life estate as it is ordinarily understood. She was a full owner except for the fact that her powers of alienation are limited. In paragraph 176 of Mulla's Hindu Law (Thirteenth Edition), widow's estate is described as follows:-" a widow or other limited heir is not a tenant-for-life, but is owner of the property inherited by her, subject to certain restrictions on alienation, and subject to its devolving upon the next heir of the last full owner upon her death. The whole estate is for the time vested in her, and she represents it completely. As stated in a Privy Council case, Janaki Ammal v. Narayanasami, 43 Ind App 207 at p. 209= (AIR 1916 PC 117), her right is of the nature of a right of property; her position Is that of owner; her powers in that character are, however, limited; but. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so long as she Is alive no one has any vested interest in the succession. "

(3.) AGAIN. It is now beyond any controversy that whenever a widow makes an alienatio, which is not for necessity and therefore, not binding on the reversioners, the alienee gets all the rights which the widow enjoyed in the property and he is the owner of the property to the same extent as the widow and nobody can disturb his possession during the life-time of the widow or till such time as her estate comes to an end on the happening of any event For example, if she remarries and the remarriage ordinarily results In termination of her estate, the alienee's interest will come to an end. Similarly, if the widow validly adopts a son to her husband then again the estate would vest in the adopted son and the estate of the widow comes to an end and consequently also that of the alinee. In other words, the right of the alienee In the property is co-extensive with that of the widow. After such an alienation, the widow is left with no right in the property, nor can she retain possession thereof and consequently if, as in the present case, a widow makes an alienation prior to the enforcement of the Act then at the time of the commencement of the Act she is not in possession of any property nor any interest therein and consequently there is no question of any limited right being enlarged into absolute ownership under the provision of Section 14 of the Act on the enforcement of the Act. See in this respect the decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh v. Surain singh, (1968) 70 Pun LR 30 (SC), following the earlier decision in Mangal Singh v. Smt. . Rattno, AIR 1967 SC 1786.