0 votes
by (120 points)

1 Answer

0 votes

Refer : http://www.legalcrystal.com/judgements/description/656706

Para 5 : From a plain reading of Section 14(1), it is clear that the estate taken by a Hindu female under that provision is an absolute one and is not defeasible under any circumstance. The ambit of that estate cannot be cut by any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law. The presumption of continuity of law is only a rule of interpretation. That presumption is inoperative if the language of the concerned statutory provision is plain and unambiguous. The fiction mentioned earlier is abrogated to the extent it conflicts with the rights conferred on a Hindu female under Section 14(1) of the Act. In Sukhram and Anr. v. Gauri Shankar and Anr. : [1968]1SCR476 this Court held that though a male member of a Hindufamily governed by the Benaras School of Hindu law is subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in the joint family property but a widow acquiring an interest in that property by virtue of Hindu Succession Act is not subject to any such restrictions. this Court held in S.S. Munna Lal v. S. S. Rajkumar and Ors. :[1962] 3 Supp. S.C.R. 418 that by virtue of Section 4 of the Act the legislature abrogated the rules of Hindu law on all matters in respect of which there is an express provision in the Act. In our opinion the rights conferred on a Hindu female under Section 14(1) of the Act are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law. The section plainly says that the property possessed by a Hindu female on the date the Act came into force whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof. That provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules. Those texts or rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain intendment of the provision.

7. In our judgment the learned judges of the Madras High Court were not right in limiting the scope of Section 14(1) by taking the aid of the fiction mentioned earlier. That in our opinion is wholly impossible. On the point under consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Yamunabai and Anr. v. Ram Maharaj Shreedhar Maharaj and Anr.A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 463 lays down the law correctly.

8. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The 1st respondent will pay the Court fee payable by the appellant in this appeal.

*For more similar judgements refer this link 

by (1.1k points)
Privacy   Disclaimer