Analysis of Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Analysis of instalment 14, Hindi Succession performance, 1956 averment OF PROBLEM sub parting 14 talks about(predicate) keeping feature by a Hindoo effeminate to be her lordly station, whether acquired ahead of afterward the jump of the Hindi Succession comport, 1956. She pull up stakes hold the attribute as an arrogant, replete possesser and non as a peculiar(a) owner. The function empowers the Hindi pistillate to exercise her justifiedlys everyplace her place in an lordly manner. Section 14 is the most significant provision in the Hindi Succession bite.METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECTThe methodology is doctrinal. The root systems apply in this picture are mhoary sources in form of books. special sources are the case rights.In this project, we brace discussed the object and scope of class 14. The billet when estrangement is done by a woman who is a limit owner and re-conveyance of the property to the bound owner by the alienee of the p roperty give oneself upd by her before the commencement of this Act, have also been discussed. The project is concluded spelling out the imp run of particle 14 on Stridhana.INTRODUCTIONPrior to 1956, both kinds of properties were recognized by Hindi texts and belles-lettres with mention to women Stridhana and non-Stridhana properties.Stridhana PropertyIt occupies a prominent place in the Sanskrit law books that had been written in ancient India. Etymologic exclusivelyy, Stridhana means females property. It includes talents assumption to her at the judgment of conviction of marriage. On the subject of ownership of Sridhana property, a take of views existed. Doctrinal Diversity existed on the subject and these divergent outlooks lonesome(prenominal) added to the difficulties contact the meaning of the term. The result was that, a term non difficult to effectiveise in its etymological sense came to be understood in a narrow and particular(a) con nonation.1Stridhana is t he property over which a woman has imperative right. A Stridhana property has two important characteristics-She could expel it take out as per her sweet will in whatsoever mannerIts her exclusive and implicit property and would devolve upon her heir.By virtue of Stridhana she would be a zippy melodic phrase of descent and her property will not go moxie to the reversioners.Non Stridhana PropertyThe woman at her wish could not dispose off this property. It could not go to her heirs at her shoemakers hold but would go choke off to the reversioners. This property is called womans landed dry land or a leave behinds state. under the classical law, non-Stridhana property was property acquired by her in any way. But Stridhana property was in form of gifts at the time of her wedding.With respect to womans estate, she was not a rattling stock of descent. She had hold participations. Though she could enjoy the property during her liveliness, she had trammel rights over it. She could not alienate the property at her own sweet will nor could dispose it off. It is a limited estate. When the womans limited estate expires upon her final stage it would revert buttocks to the reversioners that were the heirs of the last male holder of the property.In her spirit, she had an ownership, human activity and interest in the property but it was limited. So, absolute rights lacked.Limited estate entails two limitationsNo alienation or disposal of the property at womans own discretionNo creation of fresh stock of descent.Under very special circumstances, a woman could alienate her limited estateLegal necessity (that is, for her own deficiency and for the need of the dependants of the last owner)For the benefit of estate, andFor the discharge of indispensable duties ( such(prenominal) as marriage of daughters, funeral rites of her husband, his shradha and gifts to brahmans for the buyback of his soul, etc.) Hindoo women have always suffered with respect to prop erty rights. She had an absolute right over the Stridhana but with respect to non-Stridhana property her interests were not absolute in nature. Though she had maintenance rights recognized by law as moral, spiritual, sub judice and absolute right, but not beyond that.Section 14 brought about revolutionary changes in the law of succession with regard to Hindu females. Section 14 has converted existing womans estates into good estates. instalment 14Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. each property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner t hereof and not as a limited owner. bill In this sub- voice, property includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own ac quirement or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any early(a) manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. nada contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any opposite instrument or under a decree or post 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 circumscribe estate in such property.SCOPE AND AMBITSection 14(1) is partly likely and partly retrospective. prospective surgical process is that limited interest enlarges whole in 1956 and after it. With respect to eruditeness of property, there is retrospective operation.Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.The rule displace down under section 14(1) has a wide a nd extensive application and has to be read in a comprehensive manner. If a woman had a limited interest in any estate, as soon as this Act comes into force, the limited estate enlarges to absolute interest. She has full ownership of property acquired before or after 1956.Section 14(1) is an enabling clause limited estate converts into absolute one.The object of sub-section (2) of section 14 is to make it clear that curb estate can regular after commencement of Act come into human beings in case of interest of property given to a female Hindu, by operation of transaction inter vivos, by testamentary disposition, by decree or order of civil court under an award. Any such restricted estate created prior to the commencement of the Act will not be enlarged into full ownership by operation of sub-section (1) if the gift, will, other instrument, decree, order or award had prescribed a restricted estate. It has been held by autonomous Court that this sub-s (2) must be read only as a pr oviso or exception to sub-s (1).2POSSESSIONUnder Section 14, self-command implies a logical and legal possession or title or ownership. Hence, possession here implies ownership or title. on that point is the widest possible interpretation to this term. In 1956, this Act came into force and irrespective of whether she had substantial possession or not, he rights were absolute.In 1959, in the case Gummalapura Kothuruswami v. Setra Veeravva3, the enounce possession was interpreted. Court said here that possession in section 14 is used in a broad sensepossession whitethorn be actual or constructiveIn 2002, in the case Mu hencewami v. Angamal, distinction between legal and actual possession was laid down. Under Section 14(1), it is the legal possession that is important. It is not the possession in its narrow sense but the broadest. There must be a legal possession though there is not any actual possession.Under Section 14 (1) possession must be lawful and legal.Where a woman has lo st possession of property before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she is not entitled to help oneself benefits of Section 14(1). monomania OF THE contain ESTATE BY THE LIMITED OWNER BEFORE first OF ACTBefore 1956, A Hindu female had a limited estate. There was no alienation at her sweet will. Where a Hindu woman makes an unauthorized alienation before 1956, she loses possession over that property, she is not entitled to benefits of Section 14(1). The alienee, even he or she cannot avail Section 14(1). Now the possession of property does not allow alienee to avail this subsection.To avail benefits of Section 14(1), the possession must be a legal possession.The alienee here cannot avail provision of Section 14 because it was the leave behind woman who made the alienation. nominate of section 14 is to ameliorate the position of leave and not the alienee. both(prenominal) the woman and the alienee are devoid of the benefit of s.14 (1) and the third party, i.e. the reve rsioners will be benefited.Where alienation is unauthorized reversioners can always contend. There was a prospective abolition of reversioners after 1956. But reversioners do exist after 1956. On the end of the female owner the estate reverts to the heir or the heirs of the last owner as if the latter died when the limited estate ceased. Such heirs may be male or female known as reversioners. So long as the estate endures there are no reversioners though there is always a presumptive reversioner who has only a spes successionis in the lifetime of the widow. It is their vested interest. The property of the female devolves on the reversioners only when her estate terminates on her death.REMEDIES WITH THE REVERSIONERSThey can file a turn in the court for a declaratory decree under which the reversionary rights are protected. So contempt unauthorized alienation, their reversionary rights are secure.They can demand from the court during the lifetime of the widow, that estate of the widow must be protected from damage or waste.But reversioners cannot buzz off any injunction to refrain a widow from making an unauthorized alienation. When a Hindu widow makes an unauthorized alienation, it is backbone upon her and not on the reversioners. Estate is in favour of the widow or the alienor it is binding upon her. Now alienee is entitled to all the rights which alienor was enjoying by alienation. But alienee gets a limited title.After unauthorized alienation, the limited estate has passed to the alienee who has a limited interest in it. Because a Hindu woman cannot convey a better title than what she had, the alienee will also have a limited interest in the estate. When the alienor dies, i.e. the widow, the role of reversioners accrues.In the case of Kalawati Bai v. Soirya Bai 4, a Hindu female had inherited property from her husband by way of gift. In 1954, she gifted entire property to one of her two daughters. In 1968, the Hindu widow died and benefactive role d aughter, in whose favour the gift was made, took possession of the property. The second daughter objected this possession arguing that alienation was an unauthorized alienation. Since, the alienation itself is unauthorized, donee daughter does not have any right to possess the property. It was held that the other daughter would get half of the share from the entire property. After the death of the widow, the property goes back to reversioners, i.e. the heirs of the last male holder of the property. After widows death it will be presumed that her husband had died too. Since in 1968, the Act came into force the two daughters will get equal half shares.RECONVEYANCE TO THE LIMITED OWNER BY THE ALIENEE OF THE PROPERTY, ALIENATED BY HER BEFORE THE ACT CAME INTO forcesA rather unusual situation arises where an alienee from a limited owner, for compositors case a widow, re-conveys the property to the widow in consequence of a challenge by the reversioners or after reversioners obtain the decree declaring that the alienation would not bind the reversioners after the death of the widow.5 The view has been taken that the widow would move the absolute owner of the property by operation of this section even though re-conveyance might have taken place after the Act came into operation.6In the case of Daya Singh v. Dhan kaur 7, A Hindu male died in 1933 and his widow inherited his property as a limited owner. After two months she gifted this limited estate of hers to her daughter Dhan Kaur. Daya singh, who was the brother of the deceased male, objected to the alienation made by the widow and filed a suit in the court. The suit was decreed in his favour. In the mean time, Act of 1956 was passed and the property got re-conveyed back to the widow. She then again made a second gift to Dhan Kaur. The widow died in 1963. The reversioners wanted to exercise their rights and challenged the validity of the second gift. Their contention was that the widow has already lost possessio n of the limited estate before 1956 magic spell making first gift. But the court rejected the contention. It was held that reversioners in the lifetime of the widow have a mere right to succeed. Post 1956, when equivalent property was re-conveyed back to the widow, it cures the defect in it and she becomes a full and absolute owner of the property. Her limited estate enlarges into a full estate. She then has every(prenominal) right to alienate it.OBSERVATIONAbsolute power of alienation was not regarded, in case of a female owner, as a obligatory association to the right to hold and enjoy property and it was only in case of property acquired by her from particular sources that she had full dominion over it. The restriction imposed upon proprietary rights of a woman by Hindu police force depended on her status as a maiden, as a married woman and as a widow. They also depended on the source and nature of the property. The Act overrides the old law on the subject of Stridhana in re spect of all property possessed by a female, whether acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act and this section declares that all such property shall be held by her as the full owner. The Act confers full heritable capacity on the female heir and this section dispenses with the traditional limitations on the powers of a female Hindu to hold and give property.In Erumma v. Veeruppana8, the Supreme Court examined the ambit and object of this section and ascertainedThe property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, is clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title, whether before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be noticed that the Explanation to s. 14(1) sets outs the confused modes of acquisition of the property by a female Hindu and indicates that the section applies only to the property to which female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however restricted the nature of her interest may be. The words as full ow ner thereof and not as a limited owner in the last portion of sub-section (1) of the section clearly suggest that the legislature intend that the limited ownership. In other words ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into a full ownership. In other words, s. 14(1) of the act contemplates that a Hindu female, who, in the absence of this provision, would have been limited owner of the property, will now become full owner of the same by virtue of this section. The object of this section is to extinguish the estate called limited estate or widows estate in Hindu integrity and to make a Hindu woman, who under the old law would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property with all the powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in face possess any ghost or title.The trend of more recent decisions of the Supreme Court has been to model stress on the Explanation to sub-section (1). In one such decision, the Supreme Court adopted the approach of giving a most rattling(a) interpretation to the sub-section with a view to advance the social purpose of the legislation, which is to bring about a change in the social and economic position of women.9CONCLUSIONThe effect of the rule laid down in this section is to abrogate the rigid provisions against the proprietary rights of females and to recognize her status as the independent and absolute owner of the property. Section 14 is acting as a piece of social legislation promoting gender justice and compare between Hindu males and females. It is a revolutionary provision.Section 14 abolishes various kinds of Stridhana and property of every kind possessed by a Hindu female howsoever acquired and whether once acquired becomes now her absolute property. She will hold the property as an absolute, full owner and not as a limited owner. The sectio n empowers the Hindu female to exercise her rights over her property in an absolute manner. The limited estate has been abolished and has been enlarged into the status of a full estate. Now the estate after a widows death goes to her heirs and not to the heirs of the last male holder of the estate. Section 14 is thus the most significant provision in the Hindu Succession Act.REFERENCESBooksMaynes Treatise on Hindu natural law and Usage, 15th Ed., Bharat law of naturehouse, 2006Mitra, S.K., Mitra on Hindu Law, second Ed., Orient Publishing Company, 2006Desai, S.A., Mullas Hindu Law, Vol. 2, 19th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006Paras Diwan, Family Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, (7th Edn., 2005).Mulla, Principle of Hindu Law Vol.II, in S.A. Desai Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterwoths, New Delhi, (19th Edn., 2005).Werner F. Menski, Hindu Law Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003Dr U.P.D. Kesari, Modern Hindu Law, Central Law Publications, 5th Edition 2006Dr. N Maheswara Swamy, Hindu Law, meridian Publications, Hyderabad, 2011A.C.Gupte, Hindu Law, Premier Publishing Company, Kolkata, 2005S.A.Kader, Hindu Succession Act 1956, eastern Law House, new Delhi, 2006LegislationsThe Hindu Succession Act, 19561Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 1 Mulla, Hindu Law, Vol.2, 19th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005, P.3782 Supra 13 diffuse 1959 SC 5774 AIR 1991 SC 15815 Mulla, Hindu Law, Vol.2, 19th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005, P.3836 Jagat Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1970 PH 309 (FB)7 AIR 1974 SC 6658 AIR 1966 SC 18799 Vaddeboyina Tulsamma v. Seshi Reddy, AIR 1997 SC 1944