- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hanuman Narayan v. Tulsabai Narayan
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the respondent, Tulsabai (widow of Narayan), against her step-son Hanuman for partition and possession of her share of the property after her husband's death. Hanuman was a minor and Shri B.G. Gandhe (advocate) was his guardian and was joined as defendant 2.
Five issues were framed on the parties' contentions. The first issue — whether the plaintiff was entitled to one-half share in the property left by Narayan — was tried first and decided for the plaintiff on 2-9-1937, resulting in a preliminary decree declaring her entitlement to separate possession of one-half the property, with an order that the property be ascertained later. Subsequently, on 3-11-1947, the court gave findings on the remaining issues and drew a second preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff's half share, specifying residential house property ("kotha" and "baithak"), directed possession and appointment of a Commissioner for partition. A final decree dated the same day set out fields and certain movables but omitted the house property that had been specified in the second preliminary decree.
The appellate contest (on behalf of the minor Hanuman) originally included seven grounds; grounds 2, 5 and 7 were not argued before the court, ground 1 was abandoned, and ground 6 was deleted. The appeal proceeded on grounds 3 and 4 concerning the classification and treatment of certain gold ornaments (29 tolas) in the plaintiff's possession.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 29 tolas of gold held by the plaintiff were joint family property or her stridhana (i.e., whether they should be treated as the plaintiff's separate property).
- If the ornaments are the plaintiff's stridhana, whether the value of these ornaments should be deducted from her share in the family property on partition.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's (Hanuman / Guardian) Arguments
- Ground 3: The 29 tolas of gold in the plaintiff's possession ought to have been held as joint family property rather than as her stridhana.
- Ground 4: Even if the ornaments are treated as stridhana, their value should be deducted from the plaintiff's share in the property on partition.
- Additionally, it was urged on behalf of the defendants that because the plaintiff did not give particulars as to the precise occasion or ceremony when the ornaments were given, it is difficult to determine when the ornaments became stridhana.
Respondent's (Plaintiff Tulsabai) Position
- The plaintiff asserted (and the court accepted) that the gold ornaments were given to her by her husband at the time of her marriage, and thus constituted her stridhana.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent / Text | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jodoonath Dey Sircar v. Brojonath Dey Sircar, 12 Beng LR 385 | Authority cited among cases holding that where a wife received stridhana from husband or father-in-law, its value was to be deducted from her share (pre-1937 position). | The court observed this case as part of the body of pre-1937 authorities establishing the deduction rule, but held that the position changed after the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. |
| Kishori Mohan Ghose v. Moni Mohun Ghose, 12 Cal 165 | Same family of authorities: pre-1937 rule on deduction of stridhana value from wife's share. | Noted as an example of the earlier rule; court held that the statute of 1937 altered that rule. |
| Jairam v. Nathu, 31 Bom 54 | Pre-1937 authorities on deduction of stridhana value. | Included among the decisions showing the earlier legal position; superseded in effect by statutory change according to the court. |
| Hushensab Rajesab v. Basappa, 34 Bom LR 1325 | Pre-1937 authority on treatment of stridhana in partition. | Referred to as part of the prior jurisprudence; court distinguished that pre-1937 context from the post-1937 statutory regime. |
| Jogobondhu Pal v. Rajendra Nath, AIR 1921 Cal 351 | Pre-1937 authority cited for the deduction principle. | Noted by the court among the earlier decisions applying the deduction rule; court held that the 1937 Act changed the rule. |
| Baburao Sukhdeo v. Savitribai, AIR 1952 Nag 270 | Authority supporting that under the law after the 1937 Act a widow's share should not be reduced by deduction of her stridhana's value. | The court expressed respectful agreement with this view and cited it in support of the conclusion that stridhana value is not to be deducted under the 1937 Act. |
| M.C. Chinniah Chettiar v. Sivagami Achi, AIR 1945 Mad 21 | Authority on the question how the widow's interest under S.3(2) of the 1937 Act is to be determined (i.e., whether determined as at husband's death or as on date of partition/demand). | The court quoted this case to show an answer to the technical question of timing of determination of widow's interest but held that it did not assist the appellants' position in the present matter. |
| Mayne's Hindu Law (11th Edn.), p. 710 (textbook) | Discussed the difficulty whether widow's interest under S.3(2) is the husband's share at his death or the share she would take if standing in his shoes at partition. | The passage was relied upon by counsel for the appellants; the court considered it but concluded the passage did not support the appellants' argument that stridhana value should be deducted post-1937. |
| Mulla's Hindu Law (11th Edn.), p. 413; Section 126 (textbook / statutory commentary) | Section 126 states that gifts from the husband (bhartridatta) constitute 'technical' stridhana of a woman (supporting classification of husband's gift as stridhana). | The court referred to Section 126 in holding that the ornaments given by the husband were the plaintiff's stridhana (separate property). |
| Gupte's Hindu Law (2nd Edn.), p. 278 (textbook) | Referenced among standard works discussing the earlier rule that stridhana value was to be deducted from the wife's share under pre-1937 law. | Used as part of the corpus of authority showing the prior position; the court held the 1937 Act altered the prior rule. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded in a stepwise manner:
- It first noted procedural irregularities in the lower court's decrees (two preliminary decrees and a final decree which did not wholly correspond with them), but declined to correct these because neither party complained to the appellate court about them.
- It identified the contested grounds in the appeal as grounds 3 and 4: whether the 29 tolas of gold are the plaintiff's stridhana, and whether their value should be deducted from her share.
- On classification, the court accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony that the ornaments were given by her husband at the time of marriage. Although defendants pointed to the absence of particulars about the occasion, the court held that when the gift is by the husband such particularities are not relevant. The court cited Section 126 (Mulla's Hindu Law) indicating that gifts from the husband constitute technical stridhana and therefore agreed with the trial court that the ornaments were the separate property (stridhana) of Tulsabai.
- On valuation/deduction, the court acknowledged that a body of pre-1937 authorities and textbooks established the rule that where a wife received stridhana from husband or father-in-law, its value was to be deducted from her share on partition. The court then examined the statutory change brought by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (Act 18 of 1937).
- The court interpreted Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act to mean that a Hindu widow shall have the same interest in the joint family property as her deceased husband had at the time of his death (subject to the limitation that her estate is a Hindu woman's estate). Because the law gives the widow the same right of claiming partition as a male owner has, the court reasoned that there is no room to reduce her share by deducting the value of stridhana received from her husband.
- The defendants' argument that the quantum of the widow's share is not determined by the 1937 Act was rejected by the court as inconsistent with the express language of Section 3(2).
- The court considered a passage from Mayne's Hindu Law (and the decision in M.C. Chinniah Chettiar) concerning the temporal question of how a widow's interest is to be determined (at husband's death or at date of partition/demand). The court observed that while the widow's interest may fluctuate until partition, this does not alter that the interest she takes is the interest of her husband. The court found that this material did not assist the appellants' contention about deduction of stridhana value.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The appeal is dismissed and the lower-court decrees in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed; the court ordered the appeal dismissed with costs.
Implications:
- The court held that the 29 tolas of gold given to the plaintiff by her husband were her stridhana (separate property).
- The court held that, in light of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, the widow's interest in joint family property is the same interest as her deceased husband's and therefore the pre-1937 rule requiring deduction of the value of stridhana from the widow's share does not apply. Consequently, the value of the plaintiff's stridhana was not to be deducted from her share.
- The decision directly affected only the parties: the plaintiff's classification of the ornaments as stridhana was upheld and no deduction of their value from her share was ordered. The court did not purport to establish a novel precedent beyond applying the statute; it expressly agreed with a prior decision (Baburao Sukhdeo v. Savitribai) that reached a similar conclusion post-1937.
Final order in the opinion: "Appeal dismissed."
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The respondent Tulsabai, widow of Narayan, instituted a suit against her step-son Hanuman for partition and possession of her share of the property after her husband's death. Hanuman is still a minor under the guardianship of Shri B.G Gandhe, Advocate of Nagpur, who was practising at Basim at the time of his appointment as guardian. Shri Gandhe was also joined as defendant 2 to the suit.
2. On the contentions raised by the parties five issues were framed out of which the first issue which was “Whether the plaintiff was entitled to one-half share in the property left by the deceased Narayan, her husband” was tried first. It was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 2-9-1937 on which date the Court below passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to separate possession of the half share in the property left by her husband. The decree did not mention the property but it provided that the property should be ascertained hereafter. Why this decree was drawn up before the other issues were decided, it is difficult to understand.
3. On 3-11-1947 the Court gave its findings on the remaining issues and drew up a second preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. In that decree the Court declared that the plaintiff had a half share in the property left by the deceased Narayan.
4. It further ordered that the plaintiff be put in possession of the half share of the property specified in the decree and directed that a Commissioner be appointed for partitioning the property. The property specified in the decree consisted of a residential house, ‘kotha’ and a ‘baithak’.
5. Schedule A to the plaint mentioned several fields, certain movables and cattle but no mention was made of them either in the first or the second preliminary decree. A final decree was drawn up on the same date on which the preliminary decree was drawn up and the fields as well as certain movables were set out therein. This decree however did not make any mention of the house property, which was dealt with in the second preliminary decree.
6. Thus, this is an extraordinary case where, in the first instance, there are two preliminary decrees and, in the second, there is a, final decree which does not wholly correspond with the preliminary decrees. However, apart from pointing out these strange features there is nothing which we propose to do about them because neither party has made any complaint before us about them.
7. In appeal on behalf of the minor Hanuman seven grounds were originally raised of which the first has been abandoned and the sixth was deleted on 1-4-1948. No argument was advanced before us on grounds 2, 5 and 7. We are therefore left with grounds 3 and 4. The third ground urged is that 29 tolas of gold which was admittedly with the plaintiff ought to have been held as joint family property and not her ‘stridhana’. The fourth ground is that even assuming that it is her ‘stridhana’ property, its value should be deducted from her share.
8. On the question whether the property is ‘stridhana’ or not there is, no doubt, only the word of the plaintiff who says that the gold ornaments were given to her by her husband at the time of her marriage. The property consists of ornaments and therefore it is urged on her behalf that it must be regarded as her ‘stridhana’. There is no evidence to counter that of the plaintiff and therefore we hold, agreeing with the Court below, that these ornaments were given to the plaintiff by her husband at the time of the marriage.
9. The question then is whether the ornaments can be regarded as the plaintiff's ‘stridhana’. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that since the plaintiff had not given any particulars as to the precise occasion or the precise ceremony at which they were given it is difficult to say where they have become her ‘stridhana’. In our opinion, when the gift is by the husband these matters are not relevant at all.
10. (See Section 126 of the Mulla's Hindu Law where it is stated that gifts from the husband (bhartridatta) constitute ‘technical’ stridhana of a woman. In the circumstances, therefore, it must be held that these ornaments are the separate property of Tulsabai.
11. The question then is whether their value is to be deducted from her share in the property. In this connection reliance is placed on the following decisions: — ‘Jodoonath Dey Sircar v. Brojonath Dey Sircar,’ 12 Beng LR 385 (A), — ‘Kishori Mohan Ghose v. Moni Mohun Ghose,’ 12 Cal 165 (B), — ‘Jairam v. Nathu,’ 31 Bom 54 (C). — ‘Hushensab Rajesab v. Basappa,’ 34 Bom LR 1325 (D), and — ‘Jogobondhu Pal v. Rajendra Nath,’ AIR 1921 Cal 351 (E), as also on the passages in Mayne's Hindu Law (11th Edn.) p. 532, Mulla's Hindu Law (11th Edn.) p. 413 and Gupte's Hindu Law (2nd Edn.) p. 278.
12. No doubt it is laid down in all these cases as well as in the three text-books that where a wife has received ‘stridhana’ from her husband or father-in-law, its value is to be deducted from her share. But that was the position under the Hindu Law as it was before its amendment by Act 18 of 1937.
13. Under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, when a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayaohaga School or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall have the same interest in the property as he himself had, subject however to this limitation that her estate shall be known as a Hindu woman's estate.
14. The law also gives to a Hindu widow the same right of claiming partition as a male owner has. Inasmuch as the law gives to a Hindu widow the same right in the property as heir husband, no question can arise of reducing her share by deducting therefrom the value of the ‘stridhana’ property which she had obtained from her husband and which is her ‘stridhana. A similar view was also taken in — ‘Baburao Sukhdeo v. Savitribai,’ AIR 1952 Nag 270 (F), and we are in respectful agreement with it.
15. On behalf of the defendants it is however urged that the quantum of the widow's, share is not determined by the Act of 1937. It is difficult to see how this argument can at all be raised in view of the express language of sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Act that the interest which a Hindu widow would take would be that of her deceased husband though subject to certain limitations.
16. The learned counsel sought support for his view on the following passage in the middle of p. 710 of Mayne's Hindu Law:
“There is however on question which presents a greater difficulty is the interest which she takes on her husband's death under S. 3(2) to be the share to which to was entitled at his death or is it the share to which she would be entitled if she, standing in the shoes of her husband, were treated as the holder of an undivided coparcener's interest at the time of partition?”
17. The question is answered thus at the end of the passage on the authority of — ‘M.C. Chinniah Chettiar v. Sivagami Achi,’ AIR 1945 Mad 21 at p. 22 (G):
“It has accordingly been held……that her right should be determined as on the date of her demand for partition and that where the widow of a deceased adopted son sues her father-in-law for partition after the latter has made a second adoption, she is entitled to a third share only, and not a half, in the family properties.”
18. It is difficult to understand how all this helps the appellants. No doubt the interest which a widow takes would be a fluctuating interest till there is a partition. But it does not mean that interest is anything other than that of her husband. No other question was argued before us. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
19. Appeal dismissed.
Alert