Unmarried Granddaughter's Limited Estate Can Enlarge Into Absolute Ownership If Based On Pre-Existing Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that the duty to maintain an unmarried minor daughter of a pre-deceased son may constitute a “pre-existing right” capable of enlarging her limited estate into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasised that classical Hindu law recognises a continuing familial obligation to protect and maintain women which does not lapse with the death of the primary guardian but devolves upon the nearest relatives.

Referring to a Hindi shloka, the Court said:

“The aforequoted dictum from Yājñavalkya Smṛti (Verse 1.85) encapsulates an elementary principle of classical Hindu law viz. the duty to protect and maintain a woman. It sets out a clear order of responsibility as it ordains the duty of protection of woman upon the father during minority, upon the husband after marriage and in later years, upon the sons.”

“Although, at first blush, it may appear to state merely that a woman should not be left independent or without dependence, its contextual import is different. What lends this principle added force is the express recognition that, in the absence of those placed in the first order of responsibility, the obligation does not lapse but devolves upon the jñātis, i.e., the nearest kinsmen of the family,” the Court said.

Justice Kaurav made the observations while dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of a partition suit relating to property at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

The suit was instituted by a 79-year-old unmarried woman, daughter of a pre-deceased son of the original owner, seeking partition of the property. The defendants, descendants of other two surviving sons of original owner, contended that the woman held only a life estate under a 1956 gift deed and that her interest could not enlarge into absolute ownership due to the restrictive terms of the gift.

Ruling in favour of the woman, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy and reiterated that instruments which merely recognise existing rights cannot curtail the statutory enlargement of a woman's estate.

It held that if the plaintiff woman had any pre-existing right in recognition of which she was given a life-interest in the suit property, her share would be her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

The Court further observed that under Hindu law, the grandfather, being the nearest agnatic relation, could be morally bound to maintain the unmarried minor daughter of his pre-deceased son and that once the property is gifted jointly to such a dependent and other heirs, the obligation to maintain her could legally devolve upon the co-sharers.

“In the year 1956, when the Gift Deed was executed, the plaintiff was an unmarried minor, and her father had predeceased her grandfather. In that situation, late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh was, the nearest agnatic relation. At least at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it cannot be conclusively held that there could be no moral obligation at all to maintain such a dependant,” the Court said.

The judge also referred to various decisions wherein it has been held that a moral obligation may, in certain contexts, ripen into a legal obligation in the hands of those who take the estate.

“In the present case, late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh, who was morally obligated to maintain the plaintiff, gifted the suit property jointly to the plaintiff and his surviving sons. Therefore, the aforesaid surviving sons, as per the decision in Lakshmi Narasamba, had a legal obligation to maintain the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had a pre-existing right to maintenance traceable to the legal obligation of her paternal uncles to maintain her,” the Court held.

It added that the moral obligation may very well assume the character of a legal obligation in certain cases and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected for not disclosing a cause of action on such a count.

Justice Kaurav rejected the plea that the suit was barred by limitation, holding that the right to seek declaration of title would arise only when the plaintiff's rights were first denied, which was claimed in the case to have occurred in 2024.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa and Ms. Saumya Pandotra, Advs

Counsel for Defendants: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Anubha Goel and Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advs. for D-1& 3 to 11; Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Preet Singh Oberoi, Ms. Ananttika Singh and Ms. Arpita Rawat, Advs. for D-2

Title: MRS. AJIT INDER SINGH v. MR. SIMRANJIT SINGH GREWAL & Ors

Click here to read order