Trilockchand vs Shanta

A.H. Khan, J.—The plaintiffs, Mst. Shanta Devi and Kanta Devi, minor daughters of Jagannath have filed this suit as reversioners ngainst their mother, Mst. Dwarka Bai in which they challenged the alienation by their mother (Dwarka Bai) of a house in favour of their grand-mother. Keshar Bai (the mother of their father Jagannath) and also the subsequent gift of the house by Mst. Keshar Bai in favour of Trilokchand (Keshar Bai''s daughter''s son). It was alleged in the plaint that on the death of their father, Jagannath, their mother Mst. Dwarka Bai succeeded to their father''s property as a limited heir and that out of the property left by their father, their mother Mst. Keshar Bai could not give any part of if to their father''s mother, namely, Mst. Keshar Bai and the alienation is, therefore, not binding on them. Mst. Keshar Bai in her turn had gifted away the property to her grand-son. Trilokchand and the reversioners also impeached this transaction and sought a declaration that this alienation too was not binding on them.

In defence Mst. Dwarka Bai mother of the plaintiff appears to have made common cause with her daughters (plaintiffs) and srated that she never alienated any property in favour of her mother Keshar Bai, though as a matter of fact under a registered deed she had transferred the property in question.

Mst. Keshar Bai died before filing any written statement. So we have no version of her defence.

Defendant Trilokchand alone has contested the suit and stated that the alienation by Mst. Dwarka Bai in favour of her mother-in-law, Mst. Keshar Bai was valid and so is the gift of property in dispute in his favour by Mst. Keshar Bai.

The trial Court decreed the plaintiff''s suit and the Additional District Judge Morena affirmed the decision. This is now defendant''s second Appeal.

The poits of law involved in this case are:-

One whether Mst. Keshar Bai as a limited owner could alianate part of the property she inherited from her husband to her mother-in-law Mst. Keshar Bai.

Two, whether in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (Act No. 30 of 1956) a suit by a reversioner is competent.

It has been a well established rule of law that property inherited by a female from a male in territories other than Bombay, she acquires only a limited interest till her lifetime and that on her death, the property passes on not to her heirs but to the next heir of the male from whom she inherited it. It is common ground that parties in this case are not governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law. Consequently in all the property, which Mst. Dwarka Bai inherited from her husband Jagannath she had only a limited interest. She had as it is otherwise known as "widow''s estate".

As a general rule, a female, heving a limited interest in the property, inherited from a male, cannot alienate immovable property. But the prohibition is not absolute. In case of legal necessity the female is authorised to alienate it. The power of a limited heir to alianate the estate inherited by her is analogous to that of a manager of an infant''s estate as defined by the Judicial Committee in Hunooman Pershad Pandey Vs. Mst. Babooee (6 M. I. A 393); it can be exercised "in case of need or for the benefit of the estate." The touch-stone of that authority is necessity. One of the purpose which is held to amount to legal necessity for which alienation of immovable property can be made, is the maintenance of persons whom the decessed owner was bound to maintain, such as his mother. See Section 181 B (2) (III) of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla page 264 (12th Edition). It is not disputed that in the instant case, Mst. Keshar Bai was the mother of deceased Jagannath, from whom his widow Mst. Dwarka Bai inherited the property and that Mst. Dwarka Bai (the limited heir) was legally bound to maintain her mother-in-law, Mst. Keshar Bai (mother of the deceased Jagannath). An heir is legally bound to provide out of the estate, maintenace for those persons whom the late proprietor was legally or morally bound to maintain. The reason is that the estate inherited is subject to the obligation to provide such maintenance. A son (Jagannath) was under a personal obligation to maintain his mother, Mst. Keshar Bai. And when Jagannath''s property was inherited by his widow Mst. Dwarka Bai, she (Mst. Dwarka Bai) was legally bound to provide maintenance for the mother-in-law (Mst. Keshar Bai) out of the estate which descended upon her.

After broadly stating the proposition of Hindu Law above, I would now turn to examine Ex. P. 2, a registered document under which Mst. Dwarka Bai (the limited owner) transferred part of her husband''s property to her mother-in-law Mst. Keshar Bai, whom she was legally bound to maintain.

The document is described as Taksimnama or deed of partition. But on going through it, it is evident that it is not a partition deed but it is an alienation made by the daughter-in-law in favour of her mother-in-law by way of maintenance.

I reproduce the relevant portion of Ex. P. 2 in extenso. It reads thus:-

The portions of this document which I have underlined leave no manner of doubt that the house in dispute was transferred to the mother-in-law in lieu of maintenance, what else can it mean when Mst. Dwarka Bai, the limited heir says that she parts with one of the houses that belonged to her husband and gives it to her mother-in-law and that she will now not give anything to her for maintenance. I have no doubt that this alienation was in lieu of maintenance, in favour of a person when Mst. Dwarka Bai was legally bound to maintain. Such alienation has been held to amount to legal necessity and a limited heir is competent to alienate. See Sec. 181 B (Mulla Supra).

Mulla in his Principles of Hindu law (12th Edition) has stated in Section 129 page 208, that "A lump sum of money given to her (Hindu female) in lieu of maintenance constitutes Stridhan according to all schools (of Hindu Law). So too, immovable property transferred to a woman by way of absolute gift in lieu of maintenance.......nor does it make any difference that it (maintenance) is accorded under an agreement in between the parties or by decree of the Court"

From the above discussion, it follows that the property in dispute, transferred hy Mst. Dwarka Bai was for the maintenanee of her mother-in-law and the alienation being for the legal necessity was valid.

The above discusion also disposes of the other question, namely, whether the transfer of the property under dispute by Mst. Keshar Bai in favour of defendant Trilok Chand is valid or not. The transferred property (the house) in lieu of maintenance to Mst. Keshar Bai, constituted her Stridhan (vide Sec. 129 Mulla Supra) and it goes with-saying that Stridhan belonging to a woman is the kind of property of which she is an absolute owner and she can dispose it at her pleasure. In this view of the matter the gift of the property which was Stridhan of Mst. Keshar Bai, in favour of Trilok Chand is unimpeachable.

Regarding the second question namely the impact of Sec. 14 of Hindu Succession Act (Act No. 30 of 1956) on these proceedings, I find that in para 6 of the plaint, it has been stated that the house in dispute is in possession of Mst. Dwarka Bai, the mother of plaintiffs, and the widow of their father Jagannath, Mst. Dwarka Bai in her deposition has also said that the house is still in her possession. It being so, according to Sec. 14 of Hindu Succession Act of 1956, any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall by held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Accordingly her daughters namely, the plaintiffs are no more reversioners because Mst. Dwarka Bai is not now a limited owner. The reversioners have now no locus standi, and the suit must fail.

For both the reasons stated above. I would allow this appeal and leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.