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

PETITIONER: NARAINI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. RAMO DEVI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/12/1975

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2198            1976 SCR  (3)  55  1976 SCC  (1) 574  CITATOR INFO :  O          1977 SC1944  (68)  RF         1979 SC 993  (2,3)  RF         1987 SC2251  (6)

ACT:      Hindu Succession  Act-Section  14(1)  &  (2)-Scope  of- Limited interest  in an  estate given  under an  award to  a widow not  having a  pre-existing right  under the Hindu Law prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, comes to an end on her death.

HEADNOTE:      ’N’ a  widow of  ’H’, who,  under the  Hindu  law  then applicable and in the presence of her three sons did not get any share  or interest in the house left by her late husband and therefore  got a life interest by virtue of a registered award filed  3  suit  under  order  21  Rule  63  C.P.C.  to establish her  claim to  the property that had been attached in execution  of the  decree against her second son obtained by her  eldest daughter-in law. ’N’s suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appellate court reversed that decree. The second appeal and he review in the High Court failed.      On appeal  by special  leave, rejecting  the contention that "the appellants limited interest was enlarged into that of a  full owner by the operation of sub sec. (I) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court ^      HELD: (I)  A reading  of the  award as  a whole, leaves little doubt, that the only interest in the house created in favour of  the widow  was that  she would be entitled to its rent, and no more for her life time. [56 F]      (2) In  the present case, the appellant did not get any share or interest in the house left by her husband under the Hindu Law  as then applicable. She had no pre-existing right or interest in the property. [57 B]      (3) The  award created  a restricted  estate for her in the house, and [57 B]      (4) The  ease fell  squarely within  the ambit  of sub- section (2)  of section  14 of  the Hindu Succession Act and her interest came to an end on her death. [57 C]      Badri Prasad v. Smt. Kanan Devi [1970] 2 S.C.R. 95, not applicable.

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

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 824 of 1968.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  23-8-1967 of  the Allahabad  High Court  in Civil Misc. (Review) application No. 32 of 1966 (in S.A. 4357/65). .      J. P. Goyal for the Appellant.      V. S. Desai and V. N. Ganpule for Respondent No. 1.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The following pedigree table illustrates the relationship of the parties:      Hira Lal=Smt. Naraini Devi (plaintiff). (died in 1925). Kapoor Chand        Nemi Chand          Chandra Bhan (died in 1954)      (Judgment-debtor)   (died in 1930) =Smt. Ramo Devi,                        (extinct) (Respondent 1) Decree-holder. 5-L390 SCI/76 56      Smt. Ramo  Devi, widow  of Kapur  Chand (shown  in  the above pedigree  table) obtained  a money  decree against her husband’s brother Nemi Chand. In execution of her decree she got attached one half-share in the double storeyed House No. 4416,  situated  at  Agra  representing  it  to  be  of  the judgment-debtor. Smt. Naraini Devi, widow of Hira Lal, filed an objection  petition under  0.21, r.  58,  Code  of  Civil Procedure against  that attachment  claiming the house to be her property.  That objection was dismissed by the executing court on  the 16th  July, 1962. Thereafter, she filed a suit under 0.21,  r. 63,  Code 11 of Civil Procedure to establish her claim.  The suit  was decreed  by   the trial  court. On appeal, the  District Judge  reversed  the  judgment  t  and dismissed  the   suit.  Naraini  Devi’s  second  appeal  was summarily dismissed  by the  High Court.  She filed a review petition which  was rejected by the High Court on August 23, 1967.      Hence, this appeal by special leave. i      It is  common ground  between the  parties that under a registered J award dated January 4, 1946, the plaintiff Smt. Naraini Devi  was given  a life  interest in  the  house  in dispute. The  appellant’s contention  is  that  her  limited interest in the house was enlarged into that of a full owner by the  operation of  sub-s. (1)  of  s.  14  of  the  Hindu Succession Act.  As against  this, the  respondents maintain that her  case falls under sub-s. (2) of s. 14. The question thus turns on a construction of the award Ex. 2.      We have  examined an English rendering of this document filed by  the appellant,  the correctness  of which  is  not disputed‘ by  the respondent.  This award  states in  clear, unmistakable terms  that she, Naraini Devi would be entitled to the  rent of  this house  in lieu  of maintenance for her life-time, and  after her  death, her sons, Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand  will be owners of half share each of this house. This award  further partitions  this  house  between  Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand and allots specific portions thereof to the two brothers. A part of this house was in the occupation of a  tenant at Rs. 32/- per month. Naraini Devi was given a right to  get that  rent. A  part of  it was in the personal occupation of  Kapoor Chand.  The award protects and assures his right  of remaining in possession of the same. A reading

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

of this  document as  a whole,  leaves little doubt that the only interest,  in this house created in favour of the widow was that  she would  be entitled to its rent-and no more-for her  life-time.  Thus  the  award  confers  on  her  only  a restricted estate  in the house within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 which says:           "Nothing contained  in sub-section (1) shall apply      to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will      or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a      civil court  or under  an award  where the terms of the      gift, will  or other instrument or the decree, order or      award prescribe a restrict ed estate in such property."      Mr. Goyal  however, submits  that her  case would  fall within this  Court’s ruling  in Badri  Prasad v.  Smt. Kanan Devi(1) according to      (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 95. 57 which,  if  the  widow  has  a  pre-existing  right  in  the property, then  the A  case will  fall under sub-s. (1), and sub-section (2)  which is in the nature of a proviso to sub- s. (1)  of s.  14 will  not be  attracted. The rule in Badri Prasad’s case  (supra) is not applicable here. Ill that case the widow  had acquired a share in the property by virtue of the Hindu  Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, on the death of her  husband, which  took place  after  the  coming  into operation of  that Act.  In the  present case,  Smt. Naraini Devi’s husband  died in  1925. In  the presence of her sons, the widow  did not  get any  share or  interest in the house left by  her husband under the Hindu Law as then applicable. In short,  she had  no pre-existing right or interest in the house in  question. It  was the award dated January 4, 1946, that created  a restricted  estate for  her in  the house in question. Her  case thus falls; squarely within the ambit of sub-s. (2)  of s.  14  of  the  Hindu  Succession  Act.  Her interest therefore,  came to an end on her death which  took place during the pendency of these proceedings.      For reasons aforesaid the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. S.R.                                        Appeal dismissed 58