Hindu Succession Act | Hindu Woman Can Claim Full Ownership Of Property Under S.14(1) Only If She Possesses It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that for a female Hindu to claim absolute ownership of an undivided property of a Hindu Undivided Family(HUF), she should have been in possession of the property.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, after referring to the statutory scheme and precedents, observed :

“It is clear that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.”

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta cited the precedents M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. A. Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721, Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515 etc.

Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act (“HSA”) required the female Hindu to fulfill two conditions to claim full ownership over the undivided HUF property i.e., firstly, the female Hindu shall be in possession of the property, and secondly, she has the acquired the property by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or by her skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. 

Background

In the present case, the adopted son/respondent of the female (widow) claimed partition over the suit property on the ground that her widowed mother acquired the HUF property by way of inheritance after her husband's death.

However, the Hindu female was not in possession of the HUF property and her suit for claiming title and possession over the HUF property was rejected. No appeal was allowed against the judgment, and the decision became final.

Despite this being the position, the respondent/adopted son of the Hindu female filed a suit for partition of the HUF property. Ultimately, the suit came to be allowed by the High Court.

Against the High Court's decision, the defendant/appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observation

The Court observed that since the Hindu female wasn't in possession of the HUF property, then merely acquiring a share in the HUF by way of inheritance wouldn't substantiate her claim to claim full ownership over the HUF property.

The Court opined that the essential ingredient of Section 14 (1) of HSA is possession over the property since the deceased female widow was never in possession of the suit property, therefore, she can't claim ownership over the suit property as per HSA.

On the point of whether the adopted son/respondent of the deceased female widow could claim right in the suit property by way of filing the partition suit, the Court held that since the female deceased widow was never in possession of the suit property, therefore the suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted son.

“In this context, when we consider the effect of the earlier civil suit instituted by Smt. Nadkanwarbai (deceased widow), it becomes clear that she was never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession and the same was dismissed. This finding of the civil Court was never challenged. Since, Smt. Nadkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff Kailash Chand by virtue of inheritance.”, the court observed.

Based on the aforesaid observation, the court allowed the appeal and reversed the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mrs. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Lisha, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR

Case Title: MUKATLAL VERSUS KAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Click here to read/download the judgment

Related reports -Hindu Succession Act - HUF Property Is Presumed For Be For Widow's Maintenance When She Has Its Settled & Exclusive Possession : Supreme Court