- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhagwant Amarsingh Teli v. Mt. Manmati And Another
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter was referred for decision on the question posed by Tare J.: "Whether a woman having interest in the joint family property by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, can challenge an alienation made by the manager of a joint Hindu family."
The salient facts set out in the opinion are:
- The suit property (khasra No. 1083/1, area 2.25 acres, among other property) was ancestral joint Hindu family property of one Gopi (deceased).
- After Gopi's death the property devolved upon Nandram and Jaitram. Nandram died before 1945, leaving his widow Mst. Narbadia and son Darasram.
- In 1945 a partition occurred between Darasram and Jaitram. Mst. Narbadia did not claim a share nor was any allotted to her in that partition. Khasra No. 1083/1 was allotted to Darasram.
- Darasram sold the property (khasra No. 1083/1) to the defendant-appellant Bhagwant by a registered deed dated 7-1-1954 (Ex. P.1) for Rs. 1,500/-.
- The suit was filed by Mst. Narbadia (Darasram's mother) and Mst. Manmati (Darasram's wife) seeking to set aside the alienation dated 7-1-1954.
- The opinion records that Mst. Manmati had no right in the property during Darasram's lifetime (other than maintenance) because no partition between husband and his sons had been effected.
- Both Courts below found that the alienation was not for any legal necessity.
The court ultimately answered the reference question in the affirmative, upheld the second respondent's (Mst. Narbadia's) right to challenge the alienation, directed that she be placed in possession of the alienated property leaving the defendant to pursue partition, and dismissed the appeal with costs (counsel's fee Rs.50/-).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a woman having interest in the joint family property by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, can challenge an alienation made by the manager (sole surviving co-parcener) of a joint Hindu family.
- If such a right exists, what relief is appropriate where an alienation has been found to be without legal necessity (i.e., the practical remedy to protect the widow's interest)?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mst. Ram Dei v. Mst. Gyorai, AIR 1950 All 76 | Held that a female member of a joint Hindu family was not entitled to challenge an alienation made by the Karta; such challenge could only be made by a coparcener or a transferee of the entire family interest. | Cited as representing the view of the Allahabad High Court (and earlier All. decisions). The present Court noted this view but contrasted it with other High Court decisions and ultimately did not follow it for the purposes of interpreting s.3(2) of the 1937 Act. |
| Madan Lal v. Gajendrapal Singh, ILR 51 All 575 (AIR 1929 All 243) | Earlier authority relied upon to support the view that females could not challenge manager's alienation. | Noted as one of the earlier decisions on which the Allahabad view rested; used to indicate the existence of contrary precedent. |
| Madanlal v. Chiddu, ILR 53 All 21 (AIR 1930 All 852) | Earlier authority in the same line as Madan Lal. | Cited to show prior All. rulings that supported the restrictive view; treated as part of the contrary body of authorities. |
| Rathinasabapathy Pillai v. Saraswathi Ammal, AIR 1954 Mad 307 | Held that what a widow gets under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 is a special statutory right and not by survivorship or inheritance. | Relied upon to characterize the widow's interest as a special statutory right (not by survivorship), forming part of the factual-legal matrix in assessing her entitlement to challenge alienation. |
| Nagappa Narayan v. Nukambe Venkataraman, ILR (1951) Bom 442 (AIR 1951 Bom 309) | Held that the interest of the widow is fluctuating and cannot be finally determined until partition is demanded. | Used to support the proposition that the widow's interest under s.3(2) is undefined and fluctuating until partition, but still is a present interest in praesenti. |
| Ramsaran Sao v. Bhagwat Shukul, AIR 1954 Pat 318 | Affirmed that a widow does not become a coparcener and cannot completely inhibit the sole surviving coparcener's rights, but that the co-parcener's power of disposal is limited by the widow's interest under the Act. | Applied to show that although a widow is not a coparcener, the manager's power is constrained by the widow's statutory interest; the case was used to demonstrate limits on a sole co-parcener's power. |
| Bhagwat Shukul v. Mst. Kaporni, AIR 1944 Pat 298 | Referenced in connection with the Patna decisions on widow's rights and limitations on alienation. | Cited as part of the Patna line of authorities referred to in the opinion; used for contextual support when discussing limitations on alienation vis-à-vis the widow's interest. |
| Radhi Bewa v. Bhagwan Sahu, AIR 1951 Orissa 378 (SB) | Discussed the power of a widow to question an alienation made without her knowledge and indicated that such power was not wider than that recognized in earlier Patna authorities. | Referred to as confirming that the widow's right to question alienation is circumscribed and not broader than earlier Patna holdings; used for comparative purposes. |
| Shivappa Laxman v. Yellawa Shivappa, ILR (1953) Bom 958 (AIR 1954 Bom 47) | Held that the widow's interest under s.3(2) is in some respects analogous to the undivided right of a coparcener regarding the manager's power of management and alienation; thus she may challenge an unjustified alienation in the same manner as a coparcener. | Relied upon favorably by the Court. The opinion expressly approves this line of authority and treats it as consonant with the object and letter of the 1937 Act. |
| Uderaj v. Manakarnika, Second Appeal No. 322 of 1955 (Dated 23-7-1955) noted as 1956 Nag LJ Notes 27 | Single Bench view adopting the Bombay decision that a widow may challenge manager's alienation in similar fashion to a coparcener. | Noted as adopting the Bombay view; the present Court considered it supportive of allowing the widow to challenge an unjustified alienation. |
| Tukaram Raghoji v. Gangi Nivruti, 1956 Nag LJ 770 (AIR 1957 Nag 28) | Indicated that the widow is not a coparcener and that her interest is undefined and fluctuating until partition is demanded. | Used to describe the nature of the widow's interest under s.3(2) and to show High Court consensus on its character. |
| Bhagabai v. Bhaiyalal, 1957 MP LJ 180 (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 29) | Similar proposition: the widow is not a coparcener and her interest is undefined and fluctuating until partition. | Quoted as additional authority supporting the view of the nature of the widow's statutory interest. |
| Mt. Golab Koonwar v. Collector of Benares, 4 Moo Ind App 246 (Privy Council) | Earlier pronouncement that the obligation to maintain females out of joint family property extended to the Government when it took the estate by escheat or forfeiture. | Referred to in historical context to illustrate the pre-1937 position that females had a maintenance right enforceable against alienees or successors; used as background when explaining how s.3 expanded female rights. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's legal analysis proceeds in a sequence grounded in statutory interpretation, comparative authority, and practical consequence:
- Statutory focus: The court centers on Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, and Section 2 of the Act, observing that the Act must be given effect "notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary." The widow, by s.3(2), obtains "the same interest as her deceased husband" in the joint family property (subject to limitations in s.3(3)).
- Nature of the widow's interest: The court recognizes the established characterization from several High Court decisions that the widow's interest under s.3(2) is a special statutory right, not the status of a coparcener, and is "undefined and fluctuating" until partition is demanded. The opinion cites authorities (e.g., Tukaram Raghoji; Bhagabai; Nagappa Narayan) to support this understanding.
- Conflict of authorities: The court reviews conflicting lines of authority. Some decisions (notably the Allahabad line beginning with Mst. Ram Dei) hold that a female member cannot challenge a Karta's alienation. Other decisions (Bombay Division Bench in Shivappa Laxman and the Nagpur Single Bench in Uderaj) treat the widow's interest as analogous to the undivided right of a coparcener for the limited purpose of challenging a manager's unjustified alienation.
- Interpretation and displacement of Hindu law rules: Although the ordinary Hindu law rule that the right to challenge a manager's alienation is a special right of a coparcener exists, the court reasons that s.3(2) itself prescribes the nature and limitations of the widow's right. Because Section 2 requires the Act to operate notwithstanding contrary Hindu rules, the court concludes that limitations imported from general Hindu law cannot restrict the statutory rights beyond those expressly stated in the Act (subject to s.3(3)).
- Practical and purposive considerations: The court emphasizes the practical mischief to be avoided: if a sole surviving coparcener (manager) could freely alienate family property for no legal necessity, he could defeat the widow's statutory interest entirely. To prevent that result and to secure the protection intended by the statute, the court adopts the view that the widow may challenge an unjustified alienation in the same manner a coparcener would.
- Application to the present facts: Both lower courts found no legal necessity for the alienation. Given that finding, the transferee (defendant) holds only the undivided interest of Darasram which must be quantified by a suit for partition. The appropriate remedial response, the court reasons, is to restore possession of the alienated property to Mst. Narbadia while preserving the defendant's right to assert his partition claim separately.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The court answered the reference question in the affirmative: a woman who has an interest in joint family property by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, may challenge an alienation made by the manager (sole surviving co-parcener) of a joint Hindu family when that alienation is unjustified (not for legal necessity).
The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded (including counsel's fee of Rs.50/-).
Implications (direct consequences for the parties):
- Direct remedy ordered: Mst. Narbadia (the second respondent) is entitled to be placed in possession of the alienated property.
- Effect on the defendant: The defendant (purchaser from Darasram) retains the right to enforce his interest by seeking partition; the court leaves the defendant free to pursue a separate suit for partition to determine his undivided share.
- Costs and fees: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs; counsel's fee fixed at Rs.50/-.
Broader implications for precedent:
The opinion expressly adopts and endorses the view taken by the Bombay Division Bench and the Nagpur Single Bench (that a widow's interest under s.3(2) permits her to challenge an unjustified alienation), describing that view as consonant with the letter and spirit of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. The opinion does not state that it is laying down a novel rule beyond what it identifies in those authorities; its holding rests on the statutory interpretation of s.3(2) and the practical necessity of protecting the widow's statutory interest.
1. This case comes before us for decision upon a reference made by one of us (Tare J.) upon the following question :
"Whether a woman having interest in the joint family property by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, can challenge an alienation made by the manager of a joint Hindu family."
2. The genealogy of the parties is as follows :
GOPI (dead) | ___________________________________________________ | | (Died before = Mst. Narbadia Jaitram Nandram 1945) | (Plaintiff 2) | (Respondent 2) Darasram = Mst. Manmati (Plaintiff 1) (Respondent 1)
3. The suit property i.e. khasra No. 1083/1 area 2.25 acres including other property was the-ancestral joint Hindu family property of Gopi. After his death, Nandram and Jaitram got the property. Nandram died sometime before the year 1945, leaving his widow, Mst. Narbadia and son Darasram. In the year 1945, there was a partition, between Darasram and Jaitram. Mst. Narbadia did not claim any share, nor was any share allotted to her. In the partition khasra No. 1083/1 was alloted to the share of Darasram. He sold the same to defendant appellant Bhagwant by a registered deed dated 7-1-1954 (Ex. P. 1) for a consideration of Rs. 1500/-.
4. The present suit was filed by Darasram's mother, Mst. Narbadia and wife Mst. Manmati for setting aside the alienation dated 7-1-1954. So far as Mst. Manmati is concerned, it is clear that under the Hindu law, she could claim a share if a partition was effected between her husband and his sons. (See Section 315 Mulla's Hindu Law) aS there was no partition of this kind, she has no right in the property during Darasram's life-time, except the right of maintenance. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the question with reference to Mst. Manmati.
5. The question concerns Mst. Narbadia, who has the same interest in the family property as her deceased husband, Nandram, under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, with a further right to claim partition. Sir Dinshaw F, Mulla, in his 'Principles of Hindu Law' 11th Edition, Section 270, page 344, has referred to the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mst. Ram Dei v. Mst. Gyorai, AIR 1950 All 76, wherein it was held that a female member, of a joint Hindu family was not entitled to challenge the alienation made by the Karta of the family, which could only be challenged by a co-parcener or by a transferee who has acquired the interest of the entire joint family in the property alienated, This statement of the law was taken to be the settled view of that Court on the authority of the earlier decisions in Madan Lal v. Gajendrapal Singh, ILR 51 All 575 : (AIR 1929 All 243) and Madanlal v.
Chiddu, ILR 53 All 21: (AIR 1930 All 852).
Rathinasabapathy Pillai v. Saraswathi Ammal, AIR 1954 Mad 307, in which it was held that what a widow gets under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 is not by survivorship or inheritance but a special statutory right, which she gets solely by reason of her being the widow of her husband.
In coming to this view, reference was made to Nagappa Narayan v. Nukambe Venkataraman, ILR (1951) Bom 442: (AIR 1951 Bom 309), in which it was held that the interest of the widow is fluctuating and until a partition was demanded, it was not possible to determine it. In Ramsaran Sao v. Bhagwat Shukul, AIR 1954 Pat 318, the view was affirmed that the widow does not get the status of a coparcener and cannot inhibit the operation of the ordinary rule of Hindu Law that the sole surviving co-parcener has absolute right of disposal over the joint Hindu family property, but it was held that this power of the co-parcener to alienate the property is necessarily limited by the interest to which the widow of the deceased co-parcener succeeds under the Act. Reference was made to Bhagwat Shukul v. Mt. Kaporni, AIR 1.944 Pat 298 and it was explained that what has been held in Radhi Bewa v. Bhagwan Sahu, AIR 1951 Orissa 378 (SB), as the power of the widow to question the alienation made behind her back is not any right of challenge wider than that which she was held to have in the earlier Patna case.
7. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Gajendragadkar and Vyas JJ. in Shivappa Laxman v. Yellawa Shivappa, ILR (1953) Bom 958: (AIR 1954 Bom 47), has held :
that the position of a Hindu widow's interest under Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 is somewhat analogous to the undivided right of the coparcener at least so far as the manager's power of management and alienation are concerned, so that if the said interest of the Hindu widow is sought to be defeated by an unjustified alienation, she would be entitled to challenge it just in the same manner as a coparcener would. A Single Bench of this Court precided over by Mudholkar J. in Uderaj v. Manakarnika, Second Appeal No. 322 of 1955, D/-23-7-1955 noted as 1956 Nag LJ Notes 27, adopted the same view without reference to the said case.
It is pertinent to note that even these two cases recognise that a widow having interest in joint family property by virtue of Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, is not a coparcener and cannot have all the rights of a coparcener. But they go further and hold that the position of a Hindu widow's interest in the family properties is some what analogous to the undivided right of the co-parcener at least so far as the manager's powers of management and alienation are concerned; so that if the said interest is sought to be defeated by an unjustified alienation, she would be able to challenge it in the same manner as a coparcener would.
8. It would be relevant to consider the nature of the widow's interest under Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Wowen's Right to Property Act, 1937. So far as this Court is concerned, the nature of the interest is indicated in the Division Bench case of Tukaram Raghoji v. Gangi Nivruti, 1956 Nag LJ 770: (AIR 1957 Nag 28) and the Single Bench case of Bhagabai v. Bhaiyalal, 1957 MP LJ 180: ((S) AIR 1957 Madh Pra 29), decided by Hidayatullah C. J., namely, that the widow is not a co-parcener and that her interest is undefined and fluctuating, till an actual partition is demanded. All the High Courts are, therefore agreed that the interest that she gets under the Act is a special statutory right. But the question is whether she gets thereby the right to challenge an alienation effected by the sole surviving co-parcener, who acts as manager of the joint Hindu family.
9. Even before the enactment of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, the females of a joint Hindu family had the right to be maintained out of the joint family property. If a charge for maintenance were created on the property before alienation, they were entitled to pursue the property in the hands of an alienee. The obligation to maintain was extended to the Government, when it took the estate by escheat or by forfeiture, as was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Golab Koonwar v. Collector of Benares, 4 Moo Ind App 246.
What the Act of 1937 did was to confer upon a widow the same share as a son in her husband's separate property under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, and the same interest as her deceased husband in the joint family property under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Her right was to be known as a Hindu woman's estate with a further right to claim a partition as a male owner. It is true that her interests under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act remains undefined and fluctuating till a partition is actually claimed Even so, the interest, when it devolves upon the widow vests in her rights in praesenti even though, as observed in AIR 1954 Pat 318 (supra), the interest was a mere spes successionis during the life time of her husband.
10. Section 2 of the Act provides that notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary, the provisions of section 3 shall apply where a Hindu dies intestate. Therefore, in order to give effect to the Act, the provisions themselves have to be interpreted notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary. It is true that by operation of Section 3(2) a Hindu widow does not get the status of a co-parcener, but she certainly gets the same interest as her deceased husband. Under the rule of Hindu law the right to challenge an alienation effected by a manager is the special right of a co-parcener, but in giving effect to Section 3(2), this rule has to be ignored. The nature of her right has been specified by Section 3(2), which also prescribes the limitations imposed on that right. No more limitations can, therefore, be imported into the section from the general Hindu law. Subject to the limitation imposed by Section 3(3), a widow has the same interest as her deceased husband. If her deceased husband had the right to protect the property against mis-management, waste or unjustified disposal of the family property, we see no reason to deny her the same right for the purpose of protecting her interest.
11. An alienation of joint family property by a sole surviving co-parcener, not for legal necessity certainly reduces' the share of interest that has been conferred upon a widow by the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937. in addition to her former rights or maintenance and residence out of the joint family property. It was for this reason that the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in ILR (1953) Bom 958: (AIR 1954 Bom 47) (supra) and Mudholkar J. of the Nagpur High Court in 1956 Nag LJ Notes 27 (supra), upheld the widow's right to challenge the alienation effected by the manager of a joint Hindu family. If this right were not to be upheld, a sole surviving co-parcener would be able to defeat the widow's share or interest as the case may be, by alienating all the family property for no legal necessity and the widow would be left without any remedy whatsoever. In our opinion the view taken by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court as also Mudholkar J. of the Nagpur High Court is in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937.
12. Having uphold the second respondent's right to challenge the alienation, we have next to consider the relief that she may be given. In the present case both the Courts below found that there was no legal necessity. What, therefore, the defendant got by the transfer is the undivided interest of Darasram in the alienated property which can only be determined by a suit for partition. In these circumstances, Mst. Narbadia should he placed in possession of the alienated property leaving the defendant to enforce his right of partition separately.
13. In the view that we have taken, the question is answered in the affirmative. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/.
Alert