http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GURDIP SINGH AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AMAR SINGH AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1991

BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 385        1991 SCC  (2)   8  JT 1991 (1)   522        1991 SCALE  (1)243

ACT:      Hindu  Succession Act, 1956: Section 14-Enlargement  of widow’s  estate-Property  gifted  in  lieu  of  maintenance- Whether the limited estate enlarged into an absolute estate.

HEADNOTE:       The  grandfather of the  appellants  and   respondents had   two  wives. The first wife and  her  only   son   died during  his  life  time.  The  pre-deceased son left  behind four  sons and  a  daughter.  In  1947,   the   grand-father made  three  oral gifts of certain properties in  favour  of his   second wife,  in  lieu  of  maintenance.  Later,   the grandmother   gifted  some  of these properties to two  step grandsons.   The  gift  was  challenged  by  the other   two grandsons.   The   lower  court held  that   she   had   the absolute  estate in the properties after the possing of  the Hindu   Succession  Act, 1956. In Second Appeal,  the   High Court   held   that  she  derived  only   a  limited  estate inasmuch as the gift  in  her  favour  would  fall  directly under section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession  Act,  1956  and as   such   her limited estate would  not   stand   enlarged into  an  absolute  estate.  This appeal is against the said judgment of the High Court.       Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the donee had the right of  maintenance  and  the gift was  explicitly  in  lieu  of maintenance.   It  was  a  case of  her  acquiring  any  new property  by  virtue of the gift but it was a  case  of  her right  of maintenance being given to her by way of  a  gift. It  was a property acquired by gift in lieu of  maintenance. The  acquisition made on 26th April, 1947 having been  prior to  the  Hindu Succession Act, and she having  acquired  the property  by way of gift in lieu of her antecedent right  to maintenance, it would fail under  sub-section  (1)  and  not under  sub-section  (2)  of  section   14   of   the   Hindu Succession  Act, 1956 and she derived absolute estate in the properties. [387E-F]      Bai Vajia (Dead) by Lrs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors. [1979]  3 SCR 291; Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v. Mohinder  Singh  & Ors.,  [1987]  3 SCC 674; Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi  Ammal  v. Maharaja  Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai & Anr., [1988] 1  SCC 99; Jaswant Kaur V. Major

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

                                                      386 Harpal Singh, [1989] 3 SCC 572; relied on.      Mst.   Karmi  v. Amru & Ors., [1972] 4  SCC  86;  Kothi Satyanarayana  v. Galla Sithayya & Ors., [1986] 4  SCC  760; distinguished.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2877  of 1977.      From  the  Judgment  and  Decree  dated  19.8.1977   of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 334 of 1975.      R. Bana for the Appellants.      Harbans Lal and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Kehar Singh had two wives, Basant Kaur and Sahib  Devi. Sahib  Devi  died  during Kehar Singh’s  life  time.   Sahib Devi’s  son  was Niranjan Singh who also died  during  Kehar Singh’s  life  time.  Niranjan Singh had four sons  and  one daughter.   On  26th  April, 1947 Kehar  Singh  in  lieu  of maintenance made three oral gifts of properties situated  in three different villages in favour of his wife Basant  Kaur. The question which arose for consideration before the  lower Court was whether Basant Kaur got an absolute estate in  the gifted  properties  as result of the passing  of  the  Hindu Succession  Act.  In regard to the land in village  Ballowal the lower Courts have held that she got an absolute  estate. The  High Court was concerned in the second Appeal with  the lands in village Dhaipai and Chominda, and it held the  gift having been without any power of alienation would fall under Section 14(2).      The  Exhibit  D-  I was the report of  the  Patwari  in connection with the mutation proceedings and it said:           "Today Kehar Singh owner of Khewat came  alongwith           Narain  Singh Lambardar and stated that he had  on           14th April, 1947, made an oral gift  of  land-half           of   total   land  measuring 8  bighas  Pukhta,  3           Biswas and 3 Biswani, which is 4 Bighas Pukhta, 12           Biswas and 1 Biswani as detailed in favour of  his           wife  Mst.  Basant Kaur, and given  possession  of           the  same.  I had only one son who is dead and  he           had  four sons and no other male issue.  There  is           no  certainty of life. She served  me.   Lambardar           attests so the mutation is entered."                                                        387 On  30th  July,  1947,  the  Assistant  Collector  made  the following orders:          "In   the   gathering,  Kehar   Singh   donor   and          Basant   Kaur  donee, identified by  Kishan   Singh          Lambardar  are  present. The change of   possession          of   this  case  is  admitted  and verified by  the          donor  and the donee. Donor  stated  that   he  has          got  no son. I had got two wives. My  grand   sons,          it  is possible may not  gift  maintenance  to   my          wife.   With  this view I make the gift.  Gift   is          for   maintenance.  After  gift there would  be  no          powers   of  mortgage  or sale.  After   the  death          of     Basant     Kaur    Malkiat     Singh,   Amar          Singh, Gurdeep Singh  and  Mohan  Singh,   children          would   be   heirs. This gift is of  1/2  share  or          Khasra    No.4658/2468   measuring  4  Bighas,   12          Biswas   1   Biswani,  Khewat  Nos. 324   to   326,          which  is  attested in favour of Mst.  Basant  Kaur          donee."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

     The High Court  on  interpretation  of  the  Assistant Collector’s report came into conclusion  that  Basant   Kaur derived   only  a  limited estate inasmuch as such  a  gift, according  to the high  Court,  would  fall directly  under- section 14(2) of the  Hindu  Succession  Act  and  as   such the  limited  estate  of  Basant  Kaur   would   not   stand enlarged  into  an absolute estate. The challenge was to the gift   made  by  Basant  Kaur  in favour of two  step  grand sons ignoring the other two.       There is no doubt that Basant Kaur had  the  right  of maintenance   and  the  gift  was  explicitly  in  lieu   of maintenance.  As such we are of  the view that it was not  a case  of her acquiring any new property  by  virtue  of  the gift  but  it was a case of her right of  maintenance  being given  to her by way of a gift. It was a  property  acquired by  gift  in  lieu  of maintenance. This acquisition on 26th April,   1947  having-been  prior  to the  Hindu  Succession Act, we are of the  view  that  she  having  acquired   this property  by way of gift in lieu of  her  antecedent   right to   maintenance, it would fall under sub-section  (1)   and not   under   sub-section  (2) of section 14  of  the  Hindu Succession  Act, 1956. In this view  we  are  in  consonance with  the   decisions  in  Bai  Vijia  (Dead) by   Lrs.   v. Thakorbhai   Chelabhai   &   Ors.,   [1979]   3   SCR   291; Gulwant    Kaur   & Anr. v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., [19871  3 SCC  674;  Maharaja  Pillai  Lakshmi   Ammal   v.   Maharaja Pillai   Thillanayakom   Pillai   &   Anr., [1988] 1 SCC  99 and  Jaswant  Kaur  v.  Major  Harpal  Singh,  [1989]  3 SCC 572. In view of the facts  and  circumstances,  we  are   of the  view that the decisions of Mst. Karmi v. Amru & Ors., [ 1972]  4  SCC  86  and Kothi Satyanarayana v. Galla Sithayya &   Ors.,   [  1986]  4  SCC  760   are  distinguishable  on facts.                                                        388      In  the  result, the Judgment and decree  of  the  High Court are set aside, this appeal is allowed and the suit  is dismissed.   However, under the facts and  circumstances  of the case, we make no orders as to costs. G.N.                                      Appeal allowed.                                                        389