Eramma Vs. Verrupanna & Ors [1965]
INSC 253 (18 November 1965)
18/11/1965
ACT:
Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), ss, 8 and
14(1)--If s. 8 retrospective--scope of s. 14(1)--Possession by female as
trespasser--If title conferred.
HEADNOTE:
On the death of the last male holder of the
properties in dispute his two step mothers got possession of the properties.
Claiming to be his nearest heirs, respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery
of posses-%ion of the properties. After the High Court had, in appeal, passed a
decree in their favour, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force, and
when respondents 1 and 2 sought the execution of the decree in their favour,
the appellant (who was one of the step mothers) filed objections, on the ground
that she had been in possession of half the properties since the death of her
husband, and that by virtue of the provisions of the Act, she had become full
owner of the properties in her possession. The executing court accepted the
contention and dismissed the execution petition. But the appeal to the High
Court was allowed on the ground that the Act did not apply.
In her appeal to this Court, the appellant
contended that : (i) under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, she, being the
step mother, was entitled to inherit the properties in preference to
respondents 1 and 2, and (ii) by virtue of s. 14 she became the full owner of the
properties and therefore the respondents. No. 1 and 2 could not be allowed to
proceed with the execution.
HELD : (i) The provisions of s. 8 are not
retrospective in operation and therefore, where a male Hindu died before the
Act came into force, that is, when succession opened before the Act, the
section will have no application. [629 F] (ii) At the time of the death of
appellant's husband the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 had not come
into force and so, when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the appellant
had no manner of title to the properties. Therefore, though the appellant was
in possession of properties, that fact alone was not sufficient to attract the
operation of s. 14. [629 H; 630 D] 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. It does not in any way confer a title on the
female Hindu when she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. The provisions
of s. 14(1) cannot be attracted in the case of a Hindu female who is in
possession of the property of the last male holder on the date of the
commencement of the Act, when she is only a trespasser without any right to the
property. [630 G-H; 631 B, C] 627
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 742 of 1965.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
June 9, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in R.A. No. 90 of 1957.
S. P. Sinha, E. C. Agarwala and P. C.
Agarwala, for the, appellant.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, R. V. Pillai,
for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
M. M. Kshatriya and R. Thiagarajan, for
respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by the Judgmentdebtor, Eramma against the
judgment and decree dated June 9, 1965 in R.A. no. 90 of 1957 of the High Court
of Mysore setting, aside the order of the District Judge of Raichur dated
February 14, 1957 dismissing an execution petition.
The appellant--Eramma--and the 3rd
respondent-Siddamma were, at the relevant time, widows of Eran Gowda who also,
had a third wife--Sharnamma. By the said Sharnamma, Eran, Gowda had a son
called Basanna who died in the year 1347 F.
(corresponding to 1936-37 A.D.) at a time
when he was the sole male holder of the property in dispute. After his death
his step mothers Eramma and Siddamma got into possession of the properties.
Respondents 1 and 2 thereafter filed a suit in the Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga
claiming that they, as the nearest heirs of Basanna, were entitled to all the
properties left by him and seeking, to recover possession thereof from his
step-mothers--Eramma and Siddamma. The suit was contested by Eramma on the
ground' that she had adopted Sogan Gouda, respondent no. 4 on the basis of the
authority alleged to have been given to her by her husband Eran Gowda. It was
claimed by Siddamma that she had adopted Sharnappa, respondent no. 5 on the
basis of the authority alleged' to have been conveyed under a will. The trial
court rejected the case of Eramma but upheld that of Siddamma. On appeal to the
High Court, Siddamma's claim of adoption was also negatived. In the result the
High Court passed a decree in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Eramma and
Siddamma thereafter applied to the High Court for a certificate of fitness to
appeal to this Court. Siddamma was granted such certificate but the High Court
refused to grant a certificate to Eramma who filed an application in this Court
for 628 special leave. During the pendency of these proceedings the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 came into force with effect from June 17, 1956.
Respondents 1 and 2 have put to execution, the decree granted by the High Court
in their favour.
Eramma filed an objection in the Execution
Court on the ground that she had been in possession of half the properties
since the death of her husband and the decree was non-executable in view of the
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that she had now become full
owner of the properties of which she is in possession. The case of Eramma was
accepted by the District Judge, Raichur who dismissed the execution case on
February 14, 1957.
Respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to
the Mysore High Court against the order of the District Judge, dismissing the
execution case. The appeal was allowed by the High Court on the ground that Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 was not applicable to the case and Eramma did not acquire
full ownership under s. 14(1) of that Act. The High Court accordingly set aside
the order of the District Judge dated February 14, 1957 dismissing the
execution case and restored the execution case to the file of the District
Judge for being dealt with in accordance with law.
On behalf of the appellant Mr. Sinha
contended, in the first place, that under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the
appellant being the step mother is entitled to inherit the properties of Baswan
Gouda in preference to respondents I and 2. Mr. Sinha conceded that Baswan Gouda
died on October 23, 1936 long before the coming into operation of Hindu Succession
Act. It was, however, submitted for the appellant that S. 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act was retrospective in operation and the appellant must be held to
be in possession of the properties in her own right. In our opinion, the
submission of Mr. Sinha is not warranted by the language of s. 8 which is to
the following effect:
"8. The property of a male Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter :(a)
firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the
Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class 1,
then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of
the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if
there is no agnate, then upon the agnates of the deceased." 629 There is
nothing in the language of this section to suggest that it has retrospective
operation. The words "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate"
and the words "shall devolve" occurring in the section make it very
clear that the property whose devolution is provided for by that section must
be the property of a person who dies after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act. Reference may be made, in this connection, to s. 6 of the Act
which states :
"6. When a male Hindu dies after the
commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a
Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by
survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in
accordance with this Act:
Provided that if the deceased had left him
surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male
relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the
interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve
by testamentary or intestate succession as the case may be, under this Act and
not by survivorship.
It is clear from the express language of the
section that it applies only to coparcenary property of the male Hindu holder
who dies after the commencement of the Act. It is manifest that the language of
s. 8 must be construed in the context of s. 6 of the Act. We accordingly hold
that the provisions of s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not retrospective
in operation and where a male Hindu died before the Act came into force i.e.,
where succession opened before the Act, s. 8 of the Act will have no
application.
It was next contended by the appellant that
she was admittedly in possession of half the properties of her husband Eran
Gowda after he died in 1341 F and by virtue of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act she became the full owner of the properties and respondents 1 and 2 cannot,
therefore, proceed with the execution case. We are unable to accept this
argument as correct. At the time of Eran Gowda's death the Hindu Women's Right
to Property Act, 1937 (Act 18 of 1937) had not come into force. It is admitted
by Mr. Sinha that the Act was extended to Hyderabad State with effect from
February 7, 1953. It is manifest that at the time of promulgation of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 the appellant had no manner L3Sup.Cl/66-10 630 of title to
properties of Eran Gowda. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act states :
"14. (1) 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.
Explanation.-In this sub-section,
"property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a
female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a
relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or
exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever,
and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the
commencement of this Act." It is true that the appellant was in possession
of Eran Gowdas's properties but that fact alone is not sufficient to attract
the operation of s. 14. 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 S. 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-s. (1) of s. 14 clearly suggest that the legislature
intended that the limited ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into
full ownership. In other words, s. 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 same 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-s. (1)
of s. 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 s. 14 also refers to acquisition of
property. It is true that the Explanation has not given 631 any exhaustive
connotation of the word 'property' but the word 'acquired' used in the
Explanation and also in sub-s. (2) of s. 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. In other words,
the provisions of s. 14(1) of the Act cannot be attracted in the case of a
Hindu female who is in possession of the property of the last male holder on
the 'date of the commencement of the Act when she is only a trespasser without
any right to property.
For these reasons we hold that the judgment
of the High Court is correct and this appeal should be dismissed. We do not
propose to make any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
