- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mst. Mukhtiar Kaur v. Mst. Kartar Kaur
Factual and Procedural Background
The property in dispute originally belonged to Bahai Singh. On his death (circa 1939) he left no son; his widow Smt. Raj Kaur succeeded to the property. On 3 May 1955 Smt. Raj Kaur executed a registered deed (Exhibit D.1) gifting the entire property to her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur (defendant No. 1). Collaterals of Bahai Singh (Lal Singh and others) had earlier challenged the gift by a suit filed 3 February 1956 for a declaration that the gift would not affect their reversionary rights; that suit was dismissed by the trial court (28 February 1957) but on appeal was partly decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda (14 February 1958) as to ancestral property and dismissed as to non-ancestral property.
On 27 February 1959 Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur sold part of the property to Basant Singh and Chand Singh (defendants 2 and 3) by registered deed. Smt. Raj Kaur executed a registered will dated 20 June 1961 over the same property (previously gifted to her daughter) in favour of the sons of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur; Smt. Raj Kaur died in July 1961.
On 4 September 1961 three daughters (Smt. Kartar Kaur, Smt. Chetan Kaur and Smt. Baldev Kaur) sued for joint possession to the extent of the three-fourths share in the property left by their mother, Smt. Raj Kaur, against their sister Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and the transferees (defendants 2 and 3). The plaintiffs alleged that the parties were governed by custom in matters of succession and alienation, that the gift to Mukhtiar Kaur was ineffective against their rights, and that Mukhtiar Kaur’s sale in excess of her share was not binding on them.
The trial court found for the plaintiffs, holding that the daughters could challenge the gift on the death of their mother, that the will of 26 June 1961 was ineffective because Raj Kaur had already gifted and parted with possession in 1955, that Raj Kaur had only a limited interest and thus the gift was invalid, and that Mukhtiar Kaur could only retain one-quarter (her share) and any sale beyond that was invalid. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.
On appeal, the District Judge, Bathinda, affirmed those conclusions, holding that under the custom the widow had no right to make the gift which could affect the daughters' succession, that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act did not convert the widow’s limited estate into absolute ownership, and that any sale beyond Mukhtiar Kaur's one-quarter share was invalid. Mukhtiar Kaur filed the present second appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a widow (Smt. Raj Kaur) who inherited property from her husband and who had parted with possession by a gift before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act could be regarded as an absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (i.e., whether Section 14 applies to convert her limited estate into absolute ownership).
- Whether the daughters (plaintiffs) could challenge the gift made by their mother after her death and claim succession to the property under the custom governing alienation and succession.
- Whether the will executed by Smt. Raj Kaur on 26 June 1961 was effective in respect of property she had already gifted and parted with possession of in 1955.
- Whether the sale by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur to defendants 2 and 3 was valid to the extent it exceeded her share and whether vendees could retain possession of that excess.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ suit for possession was within the period of limitation applicable to suits for possession of an estate of a deceased (Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act).
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The parties were governed by a customary law of succession and alienation under which Smt. Raj Kaur had no right to gift the property in favour of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur alone and such a gift was ineffective against the plaintiffs' succession rights.
- On Smt. Raj Kaur’s death succession opened in favour of the daughters and the plaintiffs were entitled to three-fourths of the estate; any sale by Mukhtiar Kaur in excess of her share was not binding on the plaintiffs.
Defendant/Appellant's Arguments
- The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had no right to contest the gift and that the gift was valid because Smt. Raj Kaur was the full owner of the property.
- It was also pleaded that Smt. Raj Kaur had executed a valid will on 26 June 1961 affecting the property.
- Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. S. Veeravva (AIR 1959 SC 577), arguing that the word “possessed” in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is broad and includes forms of possession such that the widow could be regarded as possessed of the property when the Act commenced and thus Section 14 could operate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mst. Ajmero v. Mst. Gurdevi, 1958-60 Pun LR 253 | Authority for the proposition that a widow who inherited property from her husband has only a limited interest therein, whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired. | The court relied on this authority to support the conclusion that Smt. Raj Kaur had only a limited (life) interest in the property and thus could not make a valid gift of the full estate. |
| Naginder Singh v. Tek Singh, 1960-62 Pun LR 70 (Division Bench) | Stated that under customary law a widow has no power to make a gift of the property. | The decision was cited to reinforce the position that the widow, governed by custom, could not effect a valid gift that would defeat the succession rights of others. |
| Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. S. Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577 | Interpreted the word “possessed” in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act broadly to include actual, constructive or other possession recognized by law, and held that where a widow was constructively possessed through another person she could be regarded as possessed for the purposes of Section 14. | The appellant relied on this Supreme Court authority. The court reviewed the decision but held it was not of assistance in the present case because a later Full Bench decision of this Court drew a distinction between cases of adoption and cases where the female had parted with possession before the Act. |
| Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram, AIR 1960 Punj 530 (Full Bench) | Held that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot apply where a female Hindu had sold and parted with possession of the property before the Act came into force; observed that a gift by the widow to the daughter stands at par with a sale, and that the effect of an invalid gift is not the same as the effect of an invalid adoption. | The court followed this Full Bench decision and applied it to hold that Section 14 could not benefit Smt. Raj Kaur because she had parted with possession prior to the Act, and hence she could not be deemed to have become the full owner under Section 14. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded in a stepwise legal analysis rooted in the undisputed facts and the cited authorities.
- The court first treated as established that Smt. Raj Kaur had inherited the property from her husband and, under the applicable custom, held only a limited interest (life estate) in it. The court cited Mst. Ajmero v. Mst. Gurdevi for the proposition that a widow who inherits has a limited interest irrespective of whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired, and cited Naginder Singh v. Tek Singh for the proposition that a widow under customary law lacks the power to make a binding gift of the estate.
- Given her limited interest, the court held that the gift executed by Smt. Raj Kaur on 3 May 1955 could not operate to vest absolute ownership in Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur. The court noted that Smt. Raj Kaur had parted with possession in 1955; as such she was not "possessed" of the full estate within the meaning invoked for Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act when that Act commenced.
- The appellant relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Gummalapura which construed "possessed" in Section 14 broadly (including constructive possession). The court considered this authority but found it not decisive here because a Full Bench of this Court in Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram had held that Section 14 could not apply where a female Hindu had sold and parted with possession before the Act came into force, and that a gift by the widow to the daughter is comparable to a sale for this purpose. The court followed the Full Bench decision and distinguished the adoption context of Gummalapura from the present facts.
- The court therefore concluded that Smt. Raj Kaur could not rely on Section 14 to be treated as an absolute owner and could not will away the property on 26 June 1961 because she had already gifted and parted with possession in 1955.
- Turning to succession on death, the court reasoned that when Smt. Raj Kaur died (July 1961) succession opened and the daughters (the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1) were entitled to the estate in equal shares. Because there are four daughters, the plaintiffs collectively were entitled to three-fourths of the estate and defendant No.1 to one-quarter.
- The court noted that the plaintiffs' suit for possession was governed by Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act and that the suit had been brought within the 12-year period; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim was within time.
- Finally, the court addressed the sale by Mukhtiar Kaur in favour of defendants 2 and 3: sale to the extent of Mukhtiar Kaur's lawful one-quarter was valid and the vendees could retain that portion; any sale beyond her share was invalid and the vendees could not retain possession of the excess.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below were affirmed.
Direct consequences and practical implications:
- The gift by Smt. Raj Kaur dated 3 May 1955 was held invalid to the extent it purported to convey more than the limited interest she actually possessed; she could not be treated as absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act because she had parted with possession before the Act's commencement (court followed Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram and related authorities).
- Smt. Raj Kaur’s will dated 26 June 1961 was ineffective in respect of the property already gifted and parted with in 1955.
- The daughters (three plaintiffs and defendant No. 1) are entitled to succeed to the estate in equal shares; consequently the three plaintiffs collectively are entitled to three-fourths and defendant No.1 to one-quarter of the property.
- The sale by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur is valid only to the extent of her one-quarter share; any sale in excess of that share is invalid and vendees cannot retain possession of the excess.
- No new legal precedent was asserted by this decision beyond application and affirmation of existing High Court Full Bench authority; the court expressly followed prior Full Bench reasoning and distinguished the cited Supreme Court decision.
- The court directed that the parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.
1. One Bahai Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. On his dying sonless somewhere in 1939, he was succeeded by his widow, Smt. Raj Kaur. On 3-5-1955 by a registered deed, Exhibit D.1, she gifted the entire property in favour of her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh, defendant No. 1. This gift was challenged by Lal Singh and others, the collaterals of Bahai Singh deceased, by means of a suit for a declaration that the gift would not affect their reversionary rights. It was filed on 3-2-1956. It was originally dismissed by the trial Court on 28-2-1957, but on appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by means of his order dated 14-2-1958 in respect of the ancestral property. It was, however, dismissed regarding the non-ancestral property. Thereafter, on 27-2-1959, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur sold a part of this property by means of a registered deed in favour of Basant Singh and his brother, Chand Singh, defendants 2 and 3. On 20-6-1961, Smt. Raj Kaur made a registered will regarding the entire property which she had already gifted to her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, in favour of Gurcharan Singh, Harcharan Singh and Harbans Singh, sons of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur. Thereafter, somewhere in July 1961, Smt. Raj Kaur died.
2. On 4-9-1961 Smt. Kartar Kaur, wife of Bachan Singh, Smt. Chetan Kaur, wife of Kheta Singh and Smt. Baldev Kaur, wife of Surjit Singh the other three daughters of Smt. Eaj Kaur, brought a suit for joint possession to the extent of fth share of the property left by Smt. Raj Kaur against their sister, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and her transferees, defendants 2 and 3. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that the parties were governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession and Smt. Raj Kaur had no right to gift this property in favour of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur alone and the same was ineffective against their rights and they were entitled to succeed to three-fourth share of the property left by their mother, while Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur to the remaining ??? It was further alleged that the sale made by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in excess of her share in the property was not binding on them.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who controverted the allegations made by the plaintiffs-and pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs had no right to contest the gift in dispute, which was a valid one as Smt. Raj Kaur was the full owner of the disputed, property. It was also pleaded that Smt. Raj Kaur had made a valid will on 26-6-1961. On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed.
4. The trial Judge found that the plaintiffs, who were admittedly, the daughters of Smt. Raj Kaur, could challenge the gift made by their mother and, they had a cause of action to bring the present suit on her death in 1961. It was held that the plaintiffs-were not bound by the judgment in the reversionary-suit brought by the collaterals in 1958, because they were neither parties to the same and nor were they claiming finder the plaintiffs of the previous suit. It was also held that the plaintiffs got a cause of action for bringing a suit for possession of the property in dispute only on the death of Smt. Raj Kaur in July 1961. It was further held that Smt. Raj Kaur had not made a valid will regarding the property in dispute on 26-6-1961 as she had already gifted on 3-5-1955 and was not possessed of the same on 26-6-1961 and, as such, the sons of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur were not necessary parties to the suit. It was found that Smt. Raj Kaur had got this property from her husband Bahai Singh and she was, therefore, a limited owner of the same at the time of the gift in question and the gift made by her was invalid and could not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, who were entitled to three-fourth share in the property left by their mother, Smt. Raj Kaur. It was further held that the parties were governed by custom in matters of succession and alienation. It was found that Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur could sell ¼th of the property in dispute, to which she was entitled and since the sale by her in favour of defendants 2 and 3 did not exceed her share the vendees could retain possession of the sold property. On these findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
5. Against this decision, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhatinda, who found that the sons of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur being not in possession of the land in dispute were not necessary parties to the suit. It was held that Smt. Rai Kaur had no right to gift the property in favour of her daughter, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, under custom by which the parties were governed and the plaintiffs, were entitled to challenge this gift on the death of their mother, when succession had opened. It was further held that neither Smt. Raj Kaur, who had effected the gift of the property in favour of her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, before the coming, into force of the Hindu Succession Act and parted with its possession, could be deemed to have become an absolute owner of the property and nor could Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur be regarded as having become the owner of the same under the provisions of section 14 of the Act. Both the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were entitled to succeed to the estate of their mother, Smt. Raj Kaur, in equal shares and the gift made by her in favour of defendant No. 1 was ineffective and did not in any way affect the rights of the plaintiffs in the property in dispute it was also held that the sale by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur of more than her ¼th share to defendants 2 and 3 was not valid and her vendees could not retain possession of a larger ares in the land. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. Admittedly Smt. Raj Kaur, who was governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession, had inherited this property from her husband, Bahai Singh. She had, therefore, a limited interest therein, irrespective of the fact whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired (vide Mst. Ajmero v. Mst. Gurdevi, 1958-60 Pun LR 253). A widow under the customary Law has no power to make a gift (see in this connection a Division Bench decision of this Court in Naginder Singh v. Tek Singh, 1960-62 Pun LR 70). Since she has only a life estate in the property, it is only that interest which she can gift and the donee cannot remain in possession of the property after her death on the basis of that gift alone. That means that the gift made by Smt. Raj Kaur on 3-5-1955 in favour of her daughter, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, was not a valid one. Since Smt. Raj Kaur had parted with possession of the property in dispute in favour of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur on the basis of this gift, therefore, she could not be said to be “possessed” of the property within the meaning of this expression occurring in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956), which came into force on 17-0-1950 and thus had not become a full owner of the same.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. S. Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577, in which it was held:
“The word ‘possessed’ in S. 14 is used in a broad sense and in the context means the state of owning or shaving in one's hand or power.
Thus the opening words ‘property possessed by a female Hindu’ obviously mean that to come within the purview of the section, the property must be in possession of the female concerned at the date of the commencement of the Act. That possession might have been either actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law, but unless the female Hindu, whose limited estate in the disputed property is claimed to have been transformed into absolute estate under this particular section, was at least in such possession, taking the word ‘possession’ in the widest connotation, when the Act came into force, the section would not apply.
A, the last male holder, died in 1920. A had by his will authorised his wife B to adopt a son and in compliance therewith B adopted C in 1942. D, alleging himself to be the nearest reversioner of A, filed a suit for declaration that C's adoption was invalid and not binding on him. The suit was dismissed and the decision was affirmed by the High Court. D appealed to the Supreme Court when a preliminary objection was raised under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1950, which had come into force.
Held, that if the adoption was invalid, the full owner of A's estate was his widow B and even if it be assumed that C was in actual possession of the estate his possession was merely permissive and B must be regarded as being in constructive possession of it through C. In this situation, at the time when the Act came into force, the property of A must be regarded in law as being possessed by B and as such B had become full owner of A's estate and D's suit could not succeed.”
8. This decision cannot be of any assistance to the appellant, because it was considered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram, AIR 1960 Punj 530, wherein it was held that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act could have no applicability to a case in which a female Hindu had sold the property and parted with its possession before the Act came into force. It was further observed that the case of a gift by the widow made to the daughter of the last male owner stood at par with the case of a sale. The effect of an invalid gift by her, however, was not the same, as the effect of an invalid adoption. Following this Full Bench decision, I hold that Smt. Raj Kaur could not derive any benefit from the provisions of S. 14 of Act 30 of 1956.
9. It is also undisputed that Smt. Raj Kaur could not will away this property on 26-6-1961, because she had already gifted the same and parted with its possession earlier, that is, on 3-5-1955. Now, the point arises as to what should happen to the estate of Smt. Raj Kaur when she died in July 1961. There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, who are her daughters, were entitled to the property in dispute in equal shares. A suit for possession of her estate is governed by Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act and it had to be brought within 12 years of her death. That has been done in the present case. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of ¾th share in the property in question.
10. The suit had thus been rightly decreed by both the Courts below.
11. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed in the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.
II/A.G.J/R.G.D
12. Appeal dismissed.
Alert