http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: VAIJANATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURAMMA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, & G.B. PATTANAIK.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER The application to bring on record  Respondent  No.2 also as legal representative of deceased Respondent No. 1 is allowed. The Ist respondent was the widow of one Ramshetti  who  died some time  in  July,  1954.    The  2nd  respondent  is  her daughter.  Ramshetti and his brother Veerappa, during  their life  time  constituted  a  joint  family which owned, inter aliea agricultural land.   The  present  appellant  are  the widow, sons and daughters of Veerappa. On a partition  of  the  joint  family  property  which  was ordered  in proceedings arising pursuant to regular Suit No. 88/78 for partition and possession, the  Ist  respondent  as widow   of   Ramshetti   has  been  given  a  share  in  the agricultural lands belonging  to  the  joint  family.    The appellants  contended  that under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act as applied in the erstwhile State of  Hyderabad where  the lands were situated, the Ist respondent being the widow of deceesed Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share  in the  joint family agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are excluded from the provisions of the Hindu Women’s  Right  to Property  Act,  1937.  This contention has been negatived by the High Court. Hence the present appeal has been  filed  by the heirs of Veerappa.      On  the  date  of death of Ramshetti in July, 1954, the lands were situated in the  erstwhile  State  of  Hyderabad, Under  the Hyderabad (Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952 which received assent of the  President  on  22nd  of  July, 1953,  certain  Central Acts affecting Hindu and Muslim laws were applied to the State of Hyderabad. One of the  laws  so applied  to  the  State  of  Hyderabad was the Hindu Women’s right to Property Act, 1937. Scheme 3 of the Hyderabad  (Application  of  Central Acts)  Act,  1952,  hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Act of 1952, stated that Acts specified therein shall,  with effect  from the appointed day, extend to and be in force in the  whole  of  the  State  of  Hyderabad  subject  to   the modification mentioned in the Schedule and shall accordingly be in force in the said State with effect from the said date in  the  forma respectively specified in Annexures ’A’, ’B’,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

’C’, ’D’, ’E’ and ’F’ to the Schedule, in  the  Schedule  to the  said Act the modification to the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 is set out.  The  only  modification  is, "For sub-section (2) of Section 1, the following sub-section shall  be  substituted, it extends to the whole of the State of Hyderabad, "Annexure C’ to the said Hyderabad Act of 1952 sets out the text of the Hindu Women’s  Rights  to  Property Act,   1937  as  modified  by  the  aforesaid  Schedule  and applicable in the State of Hyderabad.  the  entire  text  of the   Act   remains   the  same  with  the  modification  of sub-section (3) of the said Hindu Women’s Right to  Property Act,  1937  when  a  Hindu governed by any school other than Dayabhaga School of Hindu  Law  or  a  customary  law,  dies intestate  having  at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu Joint Family Property, his widow  shall  have  in  the property  the  same  interest  as he himself had, subject to sub-section (3).  Under sub-section  (3)  Under  sub-section (3) the interest devolving on a Hindu Woman’s Estate.  There is  no definition of property under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937.  Therefore, the term property has  to be   given   its   ordinary   meaning  which  would  include agricultural land also. However, the appellants rely upon a decision of  the Federal Court  in  Re:  Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act. 1937 AIR 1941 Federal Court page 72 under which the validity of the said Original Act  which  had  been  enacted  by  the Central  Legislature  was  considered  by the Federal Court, Examining the question  of  legislative  competence  of  the Central Legislature to enact in 1937 the Hindu Women’s Right to  Property  Act the Federal Court examined the legislative entries under the Government of India Act, 1935.    It  held that  under  Entry  21  of  List  II  which  applied  to the Provincial Legislatures, laws with respect to devolution  of agricultural  land  could  be enacted only by the Provincial Legislature.  It also noted that in List  III,  that  is  to say,  the  Concurrent List, Entry 7 was wills, intestacy and succession save and except agricultural land’.  The  Federal Court  observe  that while the Act purports to deal in quite general terms with property’ or  ’separate  property’  of  a Hindu  dying  intestate  or  his  interest  in  joint family property, it does not distinguish between agricultural  land and other  property and.  therefore, is not limited in terms to the latter.  However, looking to the completence  of  the Central  Legislature to enact such a law the word ’property’ will have to be suitable construed.  ’When legislature  with limited  and  restricted  powers makes use of such a word of such a wide and general import, the presumption must  surely be  that  it  is  using  it  with  reference to that kind or property with respect to which it is competent to  legislate and to  no  other.  The Federal Court, therefore, restricted the application of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 by excluding agricultural lands from its purview.        The  same  constraint  do  not  apply  to  the   said Hyderabad  Act  of  1952  passed  by thee legislature of the State of Hyderabad, which has received  the  assent  of  the President  on  22nd  of July, 1953. The relevant Legislative entries  under  the  Constitution  of  India  are   somewhat different. Entry 5 in the Concurrent List, being List III in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, is as follows:               "Marriage  and  divorce;  infants  and minors;         adoption; wills,  intestacy  and  succession;  joint         family  and  partition;  all  matters  in respect of         which   parties   in   judicial   proceedings   were         immediately   before   the   commencement   of  this         Constitution subject to their personal law."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

The is no exclusion of agricultural lands from Entry 5 which covers  wills, intestacy and succession as also joint family and partition.  Although Entry  6  of  the  Concurrent  List refers to transfer of property other than agricultural land, agriculture   as   well   as  land  including  transfer  and alienation of agricultural land are placed under Entries  14 and 18  of  the State List.  Therefore, it is quite apparent that the Legislature of the State of Hyderabad was competent to enact  a  Legislation  which  dealt  with  intestacy  and succession  relating  to  Joint  Family  Property  including agricultural land.  The language of the Hindu Women’s  Right to  Property  Act, 1937 as enacted in the State of Hyderabad is as general as the Original Act.  The words ’property’  as well  as ’interest in Joint Family Property’ are wide enough to cover  agricultural  lands  also.    Therefore,   on   an interpretation  of  the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 as enacted by the State of Hyderabad,  the  Act  covers agricultural lands.    As the Federal Court has noted in the above judgment, the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act is a remedial Act  seeking  to  mitigate  hardships  of  a  widow regarding  inheritance  under  the  Hindu  Law  prior to the enactment of the  1937  Act;  and  it  ought  to  receive  a beneficial interpretation.  The beneficial interpretation in the  present  context would clearly cover agricultural lands under the word ’property’.    This  Act  also  received  the assent of the President under Article 254(2) and, therefore, it will prevail. The  appellants, however, rely upon a subsequent Act passed by the State of Hyderabad,  namely,  Hyderabad  Hindu Women’s  Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Land) Act, 1954.  Section 2 of the said Act  provides  that  "term ’property’ in the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act as in force  in  the State of Hyderabad shall include agricultural land.  This Act received the assent of the President on 15th October, 1954 and was published in the State  Gazette  dated 22nd of  October,  1954.  It was submitted that prior to the enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women’s Right  to  Property (Extension  to  Agricultural  Lands)  Act,  1954,  the Hindu women’s Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952  would  not apply to  agricultural  land.    The  High Court has rightly negatived this contention.  A subsequent Act cannot be  used to  interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this fashion.  The language of the earlier Act is wide enough  to cover agricultural  land  also.  In the entire Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, there is  nothing  which  would indicate  that  the Act does not apply to agricultural land. The word ’property’ is a general term which covers all kinds of property, including  agricultural  land.    A  restricted interpretation  was  given  to  thee  original Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937  enacted  by  the  then  Central Legislature,  entirely because of the legislative entries in the Government  of  India  Act,  1935,  which  excluded  the legislative  competence  of  the  Central  Legislature  over agricultural lands.  Such is not the case in respect of  the Hindu Women’s Right to Property act, 1937, as enacted by the State Legislature  of  the State of Hyderabad.  The ratio of the Federal Court  judgment,  therefore,  would  not  apply. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the subsequent  Act  of  1954  restricted the application of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 brought into force by the earlier Hyderabad Act of 1952.  As is pointed out  by the  High  Court,  the  Act  of  1954  was enacted by way of abundant caution, to make sure that the  agricultural  lands were  not considered as excluded from the scope of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act  as  enacted  in  1952.    The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

second Act is, therefore, clarificatory. The High Court has dealt at length with various decisions of this   Court   and   other   Court   on   thee  question  of interpretation of  the  said  statute.    Since  we  are  in agreement  with  the  reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High  Court,  we  are  not  again  examining  the  cases referred to  by  the  High Court.  We, therefore, affirm the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the  High  Court  and dismiss this appeal.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.