Surjit Kaur (Mst) and Others Vs. Arjan Singh and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1993
Petitioner: Surjit Kaur (Mst) and Others
Respondent: Arjan Singh and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1993
Judges: N.P. SINGH & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 12, 1996
Head Note:
HINDU LAWS
Hindu Succession Act
A widow executes deed of gift before the Act but remains in possession of the properties – Whether acquires absolute title to properties before coming into force of the Act. Held that High Court was in error in reversing the finding of the lower courts, the widow had acquired the valid right as she died several years after the Act came into force. Property shall vest in the legal heirs i.e. three daughters of the widow.
(Para 2, 4)
Hindu Succession Act
A widow executes deed of gift before the Act but remains in possession of the properties – Whether acquires absolute title to properties before coming into force of the Act. Held that High Court was in error in reversing the finding of the lower courts, the widow had acquired the valid right as she died several years after the Act came into force. Property shall vest in the legal heirs i.e. three daughters of the widow.
(Para 2, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The suit in question has been filed on behalf of the respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession. It was dismissed by the trial court. The court of appeal also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The second appeal filed before the High Court on behalf of the respondents, however, was allowed and the suit in question was decreed.
2. It appears that one Mit Singh, the original holder of the lands in question, died in the year 1940 leaving behind his widow, namely, Harnam Kaur and three daughters who are the ap-pellants before this Court. There is no dispute that after the death of Mit Singh, his widow Harnam Kaur came into possession of the properties in question and remained in possession thereof. She executed a registered deed of gift in the year 1948 in favour of her three daughters i.e. the appellants. Harnam Kaur died on 1-1-1986. The suit which was filed on behalf of the respondents questioned the validity of the aforesaid deed of gift claiming that the widow had no right to execute the deed of gift and the respondents as reversioners were entitled to hold the properties after the death of the widow, Harnam Kaur. This stand of the respondents was negatived by the trial court as well as the court of appeal, but the High Court in second appeal reversed the findings recorded by the two courts. There are a series of judg-ments of this Court that even if the deed of gift is executed before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act but if the widow survives and remains in possession of the properties after coming into force of the aforesaid Act, then she acquires abso-lute title to the properties left behind by her husband and her limited right crystallises into an absolute right. In view of those judgments we fail to appreciate as to how the High Court set aside the judgments of the two courts and decreed the suit of the respondents as reversioners. In view of the fact that Harnam Kaur, the widow, died on 1-1-1986 several years after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the appellants shall be deemed to have acquired valid right, title and interest over the lands gifted to them.
3. In any case, after the death of the widow, Harnam Kaur, the properties shall vest in the heirs of her husband and there is no dispute that Mit Singh, the husband of Harnam Kaur left behind only three daughters who are the appellants before us. They are Class I heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and, as such, they will inherit the properties even as the heirs of Mit Singh, in preference to the respondents, who are not Class I heirs. On that ground also, the suit filed on behalf of the respondents ought to have been dismissed.
4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside.
5. IA No. 3 of 1996 stands disposed of. No costs.
1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The suit in question has been filed on behalf of the respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession. It was dismissed by the trial court. The court of appeal also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The second appeal filed before the High Court on behalf of the respondents, however, was allowed and the suit in question was decreed.
2. It appears that one Mit Singh, the original holder of the lands in question, died in the year 1940 leaving behind his widow, namely, Harnam Kaur and three daughters who are the ap-pellants before this Court. There is no dispute that after the death of Mit Singh, his widow Harnam Kaur came into possession of the properties in question and remained in possession thereof. She executed a registered deed of gift in the year 1948 in favour of her three daughters i.e. the appellants. Harnam Kaur died on 1-1-1986. The suit which was filed on behalf of the respondents questioned the validity of the aforesaid deed of gift claiming that the widow had no right to execute the deed of gift and the respondents as reversioners were entitled to hold the properties after the death of the widow, Harnam Kaur. This stand of the respondents was negatived by the trial court as well as the court of appeal, but the High Court in second appeal reversed the findings recorded by the two courts. There are a series of judg-ments of this Court that even if the deed of gift is executed before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act but if the widow survives and remains in possession of the properties after coming into force of the aforesaid Act, then she acquires abso-lute title to the properties left behind by her husband and her limited right crystallises into an absolute right. In view of those judgments we fail to appreciate as to how the High Court set aside the judgments of the two courts and decreed the suit of the respondents as reversioners. In view of the fact that Harnam Kaur, the widow, died on 1-1-1986 several years after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the appellants shall be deemed to have acquired valid right, title and interest over the lands gifted to them.
3. In any case, after the death of the widow, Harnam Kaur, the properties shall vest in the heirs of her husband and there is no dispute that Mit Singh, the husband of Harnam Kaur left behind only three daughters who are the appellants before us. They are Class I heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and, as such, they will inherit the properties even as the heirs of Mit Singh, in preference to the respondents, who are not Class I heirs. On that ground also, the suit filed on behalf of the respondents ought to have been dismissed.
4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside.
5. IA No. 3 of 1996 stands disposed of. No costs.
