RAM SWARATH KOHAR Vs. BINDHYACHAL KOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. Admittedly, Ram Prakash Kohar, Ramjash Kohar and Ram Karan Kohar were the sons of Gulaman and they had the right over the property in question. Ram Karan Kohar died leaving behind his heirs, namely, widow Dahauri and she gifted away the property in favour of the plaintiffs who happened to be grand -sons through her two daughters, namely, Mazachhia and Dauri. The plaintiffs have come up for delcaration of their right, title and interest to the property of Ram Karan Kohar as the same has been clouded on the claim made by the heirs of Ram Bakash Kohar, Ramjash Kohar as reversionists of Ram Karan Kohar. Regarding the date of death of Dahauri, there was controversy between the parties. The plaintiffs asserted that she died in the year 1937 while the defendants claimed that she died in the year 1930. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that Dahauri died in the year 1937 and as such, she had a limited interest under the Hindu Women 's Right to Property Act and limited interest became absolute after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such when the same become absolute the gift made in favour of the plaintiff were legally valid and hence the declaration sought for from the side of the plaintiff had been granted and also been confirmed by the appellant court.

(2.) AFTER coming into force of 1956 Act, there were various judgments by various High Courts on the interpretation of Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Act itself. The same has been set at rest by three landmark judgments of the Apex Court, as reported in AIR 1991 (SC) 1581 (Kalawatibai vs. Suriabai), 1997 (SC) 1944 and 1987 (SC) 1493 (Jagannathan vs. Kunjithapadan) interpreting the word ''possession" as coming within the purview of Section 14 (1) of the 1956 Act. It has been held by the Apex Court that the possession as coming in that provision does not mean physical possession even constructive possession also comes within the purview of making the same absolute under the 1956 Act. It was held by the Apex Court that equality and heirship between the female and male heirs being admitted to be eradicated by the Act then the absolute interest given to the female heirs should be irrespective of her physical possession over the land. Constructive possession and possession in semblance in lieu of maintenance had also been construed to be a possession under Section 14 (1) of the Act. So in the present case, even if, Daharui died before coming into force of Hindu Womens Right to Property Act then also she had the right to get maintenance from the property of her husband and an such, she had a charge over the property itself in lieu of maintenance and that would transform into a limited interest by the Act, 1936 (sic -1937 ?) and the same would become absolute by the Act, 1956. I do not find that the learned courts below had committed any error of law in coming to the decision granting relief to the plaintiffs. Hence, when there is no force in this second appeal, the same is rejected under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No order as to costs.