ivil Appeal No 630 of 1981
 From the Judgment and Decree dated 248
1979 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 358 of 1977
WITH S L P Nos 43879  211380
724 TS Krishnamurty lyer G Narasimhalu GS Narayana K Ram Kumar Mrs Anjani Mrs J Ramachandran TT Kunhi kannan section Srinivasan and ATM Sampath for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
In the above appeal and Special Leave Petitions question has been raised about the ambit and scope of Sec
141 and 142 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act 
Before adverting to the legal question it would be proper to narrate in short the facts of each case
Civil Appeal No 630 of 1981 Thota Madhav Rao the plaintiff filed a suit against Thota Manikyamma on the allegation that the plaintiffs father Yellamanda and the defendant s husband Late Venkata Subbayya were brothers
As the defendant and her husband had no issue they brought up the plaintiff as their foster son from the age of eight years and thereafter the plaintiff continued to live with them and was brought up treating him as their own son
Venkata Subbayya died on 1411932 and before his death he executed a will bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his wife Smt
Thota Manikyamma for her life with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff
Both the parties lived together with perfect understanding but after some time there was misunderstanding and the defendant assumed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and began to claim the suit property as her absolute property
The defendant also executed a registered will on 261069 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of one Ramisetti Koteswar Rao
The plaintiff in these circumstances claimed absolute right in the suit properties after the lifetime of the defendant and challenged the right of the defendant to execute any will in respect of the suit properties
The defendant took the plea that her husband died issueless and intestate and did not execute any will at any time
Neither she nor her husband brought up the plaintiff as their foster son nor did they educate him
The defendant had brought up Ramisetti Koteswar Rao who is her nephew from his child hood and performed his marriage
On account of love and affection for him and his children the defendant executed a registered will on 261069 bequeathing all her properties in his favour
The Trial Court held the will dated 1411932 proved and decreed the plaintiffs suit
The First Appellate Court upheld the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court
The defendant preferred a second  appeal in the High Court
During the pendency of the Second Appeal in the 725 High Court the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record
The High Court by Judgment dated 2481979 allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit with costs throughout
The legal representatives of the plaintiff have come to this Court by grant of special leave
The question involved is whether the life interest in the property acquired by Thota Manikyamma under the will execut ed by her husband and continued to be in her possession became her absolute property under Sec
141 of the Act
Special Leave Petition C No 438 of 1979 One Meenammal is the wife of Ovi Reddiar
Married life between Ovi Reddiar and his wife
was not happy and cordial
Ovi Reddiar executed a registered will exhibit A 4 dated 2131921 bequeathing all his properties including the suit properties in favour of his mother and sister for their lifetime and thereafter in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar the two sons of his sister and their issues
In the said will reference was made regarding the  conduct of Meenammal in deserting him and in any event if she changed her mind and agreed to live under the protection of the legatees she was allowed to enjoy the income from item I of the suit properties and that she should construct a house in item referred to in the will and to live there during her lifetime and after her death the said Item and the house site with the house shall go to the above men tioned Ramalinga Reddiar and Dhanush Koti Reddiar
Ovi Reddiar died in 1922 and thereafter the legatees under the will entered into possession of all the proper ties
Meenammal put obstruction to the legatees in getting possession
There was some criminal litigation between Smt
Meenam mal and the legatees under Sec
145 Cr
PC which resulted in favour of the legatees exhibit A 1
Meenammal then filed a suit in 1923 praying for a declaration that the will made by her husband was not valid and as such be cancelled and for possession and mesne profits and in the alternative she claimed for maintenance both past and future
In the said suit the parties entered into a compromise and a com promise decree was passed on 531924 vide exhibit A 1
Under the terms of said compromise the execution of the will was accepted and the same was made subject to the terms of the compromise decree
Under the compromise decree it was agreed that Smt
Meenammal would enjoy items 1  2 of the properties mentioned in the will and also 50 cents of land during her lifetime
She would also have an enjoyment of the 726 house site during her lifetime without any right of aliena tion  Dhanush Koti died unmarried in 1930 but during his lifetime he sold his interest in
the properties in favour of Ramalinga Reddiar
Ramalinga Reddiar died in 1962
On his death the petitioners before this Court being the sons and daughters of Ramalinga Reddiar Claimed to have become enti tled for all the properties of Ramalinga Reddiar including the rights in the suit property
Meenammal during her lifetime executed a settlement deed in favour of the re spendents before this Court giving absolute rights in the suit properties
The petitioners before this Court filed a suit against Smt
Meenammal and the respondents for declara tion that the settlement deed exhibit A 10 executed by Smt
Meenammal will not enure beyond the lifetime of Smt
Meenammal
Meenammal contested the suit and took the plea that the limited interest given to her under the com promise decree had become enlarged into absolute right by virtue of Section 141 of the Act
The Trial Court decreed the suit and it was
affirmed in first appeal
Meenam mal having died
 the respondents in this Court preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners
The petitioners in these circum stances have filed the S LP under Article 136 of the Constitution of India SLP C No 2113 of 1980 The suit properties as well as some other properties originally belonged to one Ramalinga Udayar
He had two wives namely Alamolu and Saraswati
the first wife Alamolu was living away from her husband
Ramalinga did not have any issue from both the wives
Ramalinga being attached with one Siva Subramania the petitioner before us executed a will on 27
1945 bequeathing his properties in favour of his second wife Saraswati for her lifetime and thereafter absolutely in favour of Siva Subramania
A provision was also made for the payment of Rs68 and a direction to make available 18 kalams of paddy in favour of Alamolu for her lifetime
In order to ensure the payment of the maintenance and delivery of paddy a charge was also created over the properties to go ultimately in favour of Siva Subramania Udayar
As Siva Subramania Udayar was a minor at that time the second wife Smt
Saraswati was appointed as his guard ian
Ramalinga died on 8745 and subsequently his first wife Alamolu was awarded 50 kalams of paddy and a sum Of Rs250 in cash perannum by way of maintenance
On appeal the High Court modified the decree of the Trial Court and en hanced the maintenance to Rs480 per annum 727 and directed Siva Subramania the legatee under the will to give one building for the residence of Alamolu
Thereafter in 195 1 Alamolu sought the recovery of possession of one of the buildings and the Executing Court alltted to her the eastern house backyard and the shops
The second wife saras wati preferred an appeal to the High Court against the above order of the executing court
A compromise was entered into between the parties in the High Court
According to the terms of compromise Alamolu was permitted to occupy the eastern house together with the two shops but the backyard portion was not given
Alamoler however remained in posses sion of that portion as well where some coconut trees were standing
Lateron Saraswati was removed from the guardian ship of Siva Subramania Udayar and natural father was appointed as his guardian
Alamolu died on 221966
The respondents before us are brother s grandsons of Alamolu
Alamolu settled the suit properties in favour of one Chan drashekhar Udayar claiming title to the same in pursuance to a compromise in AAO 567 of 1950
Ramayya Mudaliar another respondent before us initially took on lease the properties from Chandrashekhar and lateron purchased the eastern half of the building and backyard portion
Siva Subramania Udayar challenged these transactions on the grounds that Alamolu was given a right of residence only in the building and the same lasted till her lifetime and such right could never be enlarged into an absolute right
The settlement deed made by her in favour of Chandrashekhar Udayar and the sale made by Chandrashekhar in favour of Ramaiah were invalid and no title could be conveyed by Alamolu in their favour
Siva Subramania Udayar as such filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties with mesne profits
The Trial Court held that Alamolu was not the absolute owner of the suit properties as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act
The suit as such was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Siva Subramania Udayar
Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal
On a Letters Patent Appeal the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit
The plaintiff Siva Subramania Udayar has filed the SLP under Article 136 of the Consti tution of India
The controversy raised in these cases is almost settled by a number of decisions of this Court
However Learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal as well as Learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions have raised an argument placing reliance on Mst
Karrni vs Amru and Ors that the life estate given to a widow under the will of her husband cannot become an absolute estate under the provisions of the Hindu succession Act as 728 such we consider it proper to deal with this case in the light of other cases decided by this Court
Section 14 of the reads as under 141 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
Explanation In this sub section 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 skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner what soever and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commence ment of this Act
2 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 or 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 restricted estate in such property
The contention raised is that if a female Hindu acquires any property under a will which gives her a restricted estate in such property then provisions of sub section 2 will over ride the provisions of subsection 1 of Section 14 of the Act which makes a female Hindu as full owner
In Badri Prashad vs Smt
Kanso Devi  a Bench of three Judges considered the question in detail
In the above case a Hindu having self acquired properties died in 1947 leaving five sons and a widow
On a dispute between the parties an Arbitrator was appointed in 1950
The Arbitrator gave an award and a decree was passed in terms of award
Under the award the widow was given widow s estate
It was held that the widow inherited the property under Section 3 1 of the Hindu Women s Right to Property Act 1937 and was in possession of it within the meaning of the word possession in Scetion 141 of the Act and when by an award her share was separetaed by metes and bounds she also acquired the property within 729 the meaning of that section
It was held that she had become full owner of the property in her possession under Section 14i on the coming into force of the  even though previously she was a limited owner
It was clearly held in the above case that Section 142 of the Act is in the nature of a proviso or an excep tion to Section 141 and comes into operation only if acquisitiOn in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre existing right in the female Hindu to the property
The Bench con sisted of Hon
JC Shah V Ramaswamy and AN Grover JJ
The case of Mst
Karmi vs Amru and Others supra on which reliance has now been placed by Learned Counsel for the appellant and petitioners was also decided by a Bench of three Judges Hon
JC Shah KS Hegde and AN Grover JJ
It may be noted that two Hon ble Judges namely JC Shah and AN Grover were common to both the cases
In Mst
Karmi vs Arnru and Others one Jaimal died in 1938 leaving his wife Nihali
His son Ditta pre deceased him
Appellant in the above case was the daughter of Ditta and the respondents were collaterals of Jaimal
Jaimal first executed a will dated 18121935 and by a subsequent will dated 13111937 revoked the first will
By the second will a life estate was given to Nihali and thereafter the property was made to devolve on Bhagtu and Armu collaterals
On the death of Jaimal in 1938 properties were mutuated in the name of Nihali Nihali died in 196061
The appellant Mst
Karmi claimed right on the basis of a will dated 2541958 execut ed by Nihali in her favour
It was held that the life estate given to a widow under the will of her husband cannot become an absolute estate under the provisions of the Hindu Succes sion Act
Thereafter the appellant cannot claim the to the properties on the basis of the will executed by the widow Nihali in her favour
It is a short Judgment without advert ing to any provisions of Sections 141 or 142 of the Act
The Judgment neither makes any mention of any argument raised in this regard nor there is any mention of the earli er decision in Badri Pershad vs Smt
Kanso Devi supra
The decision in Mst
Karmi  Anr
cannot be considered as an authority on the ambit and scope of Sections 141 and 2 of the Act
The controversy regarding sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 14 of the Act again came up for consideration in V Tulsamrna  Ors
vs V Sesha Reddy dead by Lrs
  This case was also decided by a Bench of three Judges
In this case the controversy now raised before us was considered in detail
All the earlier cases were 730 considered including Badri Prasad vs Smt
Kanso Devi supra and the ratio of this case was followed and approved in V Tulsamma s case
Hon ble Bhagwati J who wrote the leading judgment dealt with the question in detail and after applying the mind to the controversy decided the same in a well considered manner
V Tulsamma s case again was dis cussed in extenso and followed in Bai Vajia dead by L Rs vs Thakorbhai Chelabhai  On   by a Bench of three Judges
The same view has been consistently adopted in long series of cases of this Court and to mention a few of them are Jagannathan Pillai vs Kunjithapadam Pillai  Ors
    Gopal Singh  Anr
vs Dill Ram dead by LRs
 Ors
   Gulwant Kaur and Others vs Mohinder Singh and Others   and Jaswant Kaur vs Major Harpal Singh  A mention of all the above cases shows that this Court in a long series of cases has taken a consistent view that Sec
142 of the Act is in the nature of a proviso or an exception to Sec
14 and comes into operation only if acqui sition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre existing right in the female Hindu to the property
If the case falls under the provisions of Sec
141of the ACt then the female Hindu shall be held to be full owner of the property and sub section 2 of Section 14 will only apply where the property is acquired without there being and pre exisitingisting right of the female Hindu in such property
Thus we a firm and reiterate that sub section 2 of Sec
14 will be con strued more in the nature of a proviso or an exception to sub section
1 of Sec 1 of the Act
This view lends support to the object of the section which was to remove the disability on women imposed by law and to achive a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu society
In the result we find no force in all the above cases and are dismissed with cost
K RAMASWAMY J I have had the advantage to read the draft judgment of my learned brother
I fully agree with the resoning and conclusions
The repeated attempts to reopen the ratio in Tulasamma s case in particular from its proponent ie Sri Krishna Murthy lyar made me to tread the route through which I reached the same result thus Sir Main Henry in his Earlier History of Institutions at p 339 stated that the degree in which personal immuni ty and proprietory 731 capacity of women are recognised in a particular state or community is a test of the degree of the advance of its civilisation
It is therefore clear that the esteem in which woman is held the status occupied by her in society and the treatment meted out to her are regarded as index to the degree of civilisation and culture attained in a coun try
Manu in his Smriti Chapter III Verses 55 to 57 stated that where women are honoured and adorned there Gods are pleased but where women are not honoured no sacred fire yields rewards
What is the status held by women in the Hindu society is a matter of history reflected from Vedic culture Smrities the Shastric law the statutory privision and ultimately converged and recognised in the supreme law of the land ie egalitarian socialist Indian Constitution
Shivaswamy lyer in his Revolution of Hindu Women  1935 Edn
p 64 stated that the ideals of the society as to womanhood includes not merely the relations of husband and wife or mother and children or the other intimate rela tionship of family life but also the notions we find about her capacity her character her claim to equality inde pendence and freedom for developing her rights to personal ownership and control of property to the choice of her vocation and other rights as well as duties as member of the society
Status and rights of Hindu woman fluctuated and swung like a pendulum with ups and downs from period to period starting from 4000 BC uptodate
However esteem for women remained constantly high in the society
In Vedic society woman enjoyed equal status economical ly socially and culturally with men vide p 335339 and 409 of The Position of Woman in Hindu Civilization 1955 Edn
by Altakar
He stated that initiation to education upanayanam was performed in Vedic period to the girls as well as boys
Women studied the Vedas even composed Vedic rhymes
They participated in public life freely
Vishvavara Apala Lopamudra and Shashayasi are only few examples in the initial Vedic period
Thereafter Ghosha Maitrai and Gargi occupied price of place for equality in intellectual excel lence and equal status with men
Selfishness and male chau vanism made woman to gradually degrade and were given no voice even in the settlement of their marriages or so on
She was denied participation in public affairs
Though Yajnavalkya was a proponent to her economic status but ultimately Manu Smriti took firm hold and in Chapter IX Verse 18 Manu stated that woman had no right to study the Vedas
Thereby denied the right to education fundamental human right to acquire knowledge and cultural and intellec tual excellence
In Chapter IX Verse 149 he stated that woman must not seek
separation from father husband or 732 son and bondaged her for ever
In Chapter IX Verse 45 the husband was declared to be one with the wife that the wife can seek no divorce but allowed immunity to a male to dis card an unwanted wife
All through the ages till Hindu Marriage Act was made a male was allowed polyandry
In Chapter IX Verse 4 16 he stated that a wife a son and a slave are declared to have no property and if they happened to acquire it would belong to male under whom she is in protection
Thus she was denuded or her right to property or incentive to decent and independent living and made her a dependent only to rare children and bear the burdens
When she becomes a widow she was declared to have only mainte nance and if in possession of her husband s property or coparcenery to be a widow s estate with reversionery right to the heirs of last male holder
Fidality was a condition precedent to receive maintenance
In Chapter IX Verse 299 he prescribed corporeal punishment to a wife who commits faults should be beaten with a rope or a split bamboo
If she was murdered it was declared to be an Upapattaka that is a minor offence vide Chapter XI Verse 67
I did not adhere to literal translation but attempted to portray their sweep and deep incursion on social order
Thus laid firm founda tion to deny a Hindu female of equality of status
opportu nity and dignity of person with no independent right to property and made her a subservient socially educationally and culturally
Widows were murdered by inhuman Sati and now by bride burnings
Gautam Budha gave her equality of status and opportuni ty
Efforts of social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Rai Kandukuri Veeresalingam and a host of other enlightened made the British Rulers gradually to make statute law given her right to separate residence and maintenance and a right over property of her husband or joint family for maintenance and a charge by a decree of court
Mahatma Gandhiji the father of the nation in Young India on October 17 1929 had writ ten thus I am uncompromising in the matters of women s rights
In my opinion she should live under no legal disa bility no suffering by men we should treat the daughters and sons on the footing of perfect equality
Shri Ravindra Nath Tagore the Noble laureate in his speech in 1913 re printed in To the Women at page 18 stated that women is the champion of man gifted with equal mental capacity
She has a right to participate in any minutest activity of men and she has equal right of freedom and liberty with him
The Constitution of India accords socio economic and political justice equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of person with stated freedoms
Article 14 guarantees equality
In other 733 words frowns upon discrimination on any ground
Article 151 abolishes discrimination and removed disability liability or restriction on grounds of sex and ensures equality of status
Arti cle 292 gives equal right to education
In the earliest decision this Court upheld it in State of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan  Article 161 accords equality of opportunity in public service for an appointment or employment to an office or post under the State and prohibits gender discrimination
Marriage as a disability for appointment to Indian foreign service was declared unconstitutional in CS Muthammav
Union of India  Ors  Pregnancy as a disqualification to contin ue in public employment was held to be an affront to equali ty of status dignity of person and equal opportunity vio lating Articles 14 and 161 in Air India vs Nergesh Meerza  Ors  It abhors or is loathe to civili ty
These are few classic illustrations
Article 153 treats women as a class mitigates the rigour of absolute equality enshrined in article 14 and its species article 151  161 and enjoins the State to make any special provision to remedy past injustice and to advance their status soeio econmic and political
Article 21 assures protection of life which includes right to livelihood
Article 381 obligates the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing social order in which socio economic and political justice shall inform all the institutions of the national life
Subarticle 2 thereof further enjoins the State to minimise the inequalities in income and to eliminate inequalities in status by providing facilities and opportunities to all individuals
Women should have adequate means of livelihood on par with men article 39a should have equal pay for equal work article 39d health and strength of working women are not abused
Economic necessity is not a sanctuary to abuse her person or she should not be forced to an unsuited avoca tion article 39e State shall provide just and human condi tions of work and maternity relief article 42
Article 46 mandates the State to promote with special care the economic and educational conditions of the weaker sections of the people
It also enjoins to protect them from social injus tice and all forms of exploitation
To enliven and alongate this constitutional goal to render socioeconomic justice to relieve Hindu female from degradation disabilities disadvantages and restrictions under which Hindu females have been languishing over cen turies and to integrate them in national and international life Bharat Ratna Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar the first Law Minister and rounding father of the Constitution drafted Hindu Code Bill
The Hindu Marriage Act Adoption and Maintenance Act Minority and Guardianship Act and Succes sion Act 1956 for short 734 the Act  became a part of this package
They ensue equal status and socio economic justice to Hindu female
In a socialist democracy governed by rule of law law as a social engineering should bring about transformation in the social structure
Whenever a socio economic legislation or the rule or instruments touching the implementation of welfare meas ures arise for consideration this historical evidence furnishes as the foundation and all other relevant material would be kept at the back of the court s mind
Section 141 of the Act declares that any property movable or immovable possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner irrespective of the time when the acquisition was made ie whether it was before or after the Act
Undoubtedly as contended by Sri Krishna Murty Iyer a Hindu male has free dom of testamentary disposition of his property or by con tract and section 141 stand an impediment in his way
Freedom of contract would yield place to public policy envisaged above
Its effect must be tested on the envil of socio economic justice equality of status and to oversee whether it would subserve the constitutional animation or frus trates
article 153 relieves from the rigour of article 151 and charges the State to make special provision to accord to women socioeconomic equality
The court would therefore endeavour to find whether terms of the disposition or clauses in the instruments will etc enumerated in section 14 would permeate the aforestated constitutional conscience to relieve the Hindu female from the Shastric bondage of limit ed estate
Both sub sections 1 and 2 of section 14 attract the conferment of restricted estate had by a Hindu female under an instrument ie gift will decree or order of a Civil Court or an award
Section 14 and the impugned docu ment must be read harmoniously as an integral scheme
The disability attached to Hindu female by Shastric Law was removed by statutory provisons in 
Section 141 thereof was thought to be a tool to remove disabilities or restrictions imposed by Customary or Shas tric Law on Hindu women
section 141 declares in unequivocal terms that the property whether movable or immovable held by a Hindu female acquired either before or after the Act shall be her absolute property abolishing the limited estate known to Shastric law
Hindu women as a class are declared as class I heirs entitling to intestate succession to a 0Hindu Male
This Court in Pratap Singh vs Union of India 1985 Suppl
2 SCR 773 held that section 14 of the Act does not discriminate on grounds of sex and is intra vires of article 153
The preferential treatment accorded thereby was held to be not violative of articles 14 and 151
Sub section 2 of section 14 of the Act attempts to denude the object of sub section 1 and 735 emasculates its efficacy
It should therefore be  read as an exception or a proviso to sub section 1 of section 14
The interpretation of the  proviso or an exception should not be to allow
to eat away the vital veins of full ownership accorded by sub section 1 of section 14 when this Court upheld the validity of section 141 on the envil of Art 153what should be the message thus intended to convey It would mean that the court would endeavour to give full effect tO legis lative and constitutional vision of socio economic equality to female citizen by granting full ownership of property to a Hindu female
As a fact article 153 as a fore runner to common code does animate to make law to accord socio economic equality to every female citizen of India irre spective of religion race cast or region
In Seth Badri Preasad vs Smt
Kanso Devi 1969 2 SCC 586 in an injunction suit against the respondent the appellant contended that the respondent was given limited estate in a decree passed in an award and that therefore section 142 applies
Negating that contention this court held that sub sec
2 of section 14 is more in the nature of a provi so or an exception to sub sec
It can come into opera tion only if the acquisition is in any of the methods indi cated in sUb sec
2without there being any pre existing right in the female Hindu who is in possession of the property
I Section 141 removes the disability of the woman It was accordingly held that though she came into possession by virtue of decree passed in an award as limited estate she acquired the absolute ownership under sub sec
1 of section 14
Section 14 was subject of critical consideration in V Tulasamma vs
V Sesha Reddy dead by LRs  and its ratio has become a Tulsidalam to Hindu
women as locus classicus giving forward thrust
to constitutional goal according full ownership in the property movable or immovable
held by her as full owner thereof redeemed her from the shackles of women estate known to Shastric law
Fazal Ali J undertook extensive survey into sources of Hindu Law and found that Hindu widow s right to maintenance is a personal obligation of the husband and he has a duty to maintain her even if he has no property
Her right to maintenance would become an eqUitable charge on her hus band s property though no charge was created by a decree of civil court as jus ad rem ie right over property though not right to property jus in rem and any person who suc ceeds to the property carries with it a legal obligation to maintain the wife from her husband s estate
Only bona fide purchaser for value without notice alone was relieved of this Obligation The right to maintenance is a pre existing right preceding Hindu Women s Right to Property and 736 Separate Residence Act 1946
Section 141 recognises her preexisting right
Any property acquired by Hindu female by inheritence or device or at a partition or
in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person Whether relative or not before at or after her marriage or by her own skill orexertion or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever and also suCh property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act movable or immovable property shall be held by her as full owner thereto and not as a limited owner
Subsection 2 thereto shall be construed as an exception or a proviso which cannot be read to emascu late the purpose enunciated under sub section 1
There fore the property held by her or property given to her at a partition or under a compromise decree gift or in lieu of maintenance and held by heron the date when the ACtcame into force namely June 17 1956 shall be her absolute property as full owner
Bhagwati J as he then was speak ing for himself and Gupta J while pointing out the faulty drafting of section 14 held that section 141 seeks to do away with the traditional limitation of her power of disposition which were regarded under the Hindu law as inherent all her es tate
The words possessed of means as the state of owning or having in one s hand or power which need not be actual or physical possession or personal occupation of the property by the Hindu female
It may be actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law
Sub section 1 of section 14cannot be interpreted in a manner which would deprive the Hindu woman of the protection sought to be given to her by sub section 1
The social purpose of the law would be frus trated and reformist zeal underlying the statutory provison would be chilled
It was not the intention of the legisla ture in enacting sub section 2 which must be construed as an exception or a proviso to sub section 1
No provision should be construed in isolation and be read in the context so as to 
make a consistent enactment of the whole statute
Sub section 2 must be read in the context of sub section 1 of section 14 and if so read sub section 2 must be confined to cases where the Hindu female acquires the property for the first time as a grant without any preexisting right to the property under a will or by way of gift
or in any other instruments or a decree or order of the civil court or an award the terms of which prescribe a restricted estate in the property
Subsection 2 must be read as an exception or proviso to sub section 1 so as to leave aS large a scope for operation as possible to sub section 1 of section 14
It was therefore held that the property given to Tulasmma in a compromise decree in lieu of her maintenance with re stricted estate known as widow s estate in Hindu law was enlarged and she became an absolute owner under the Act
She had the right to 737 alienate the property in favour of the others
An attempt to reopen the ratio was thwarted by this Court in Bai Vajia dead by LRs vs Thakorbhai Chelabhai Ors  while reaffirming the ratio of Tulasamma s case as correct law this Court further held that limited ownership is sine quo non for the applicability of sub section 1 of section 14 of the Act
When a widow holds a property for her enjoyment as long as she lives no body is entitled to deprive her or to deal with the property in any manner to her detriment
The property is for the time being beneficially Vested in her and she has the occupation control and usufruct of it to the exclusion of all others
SUch relationship to property falls squarely within the meaning of expression of limited owner as under section 141 of the Act
In that context approved the dictum of Bhagwati J that section 141 aimed to achieve a social purpose
to bring about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu Society It was a step to accord equality of sex elevating women from subservient position in the economic field to higher pedestal with full ownership untrammelled by artificial limitation of Women s estate created by male dominence to subjugate her  
In Jagannathan Pillai vs Kunithapadam Pillai  Ors  this Court held that if the question arises as to what was the nature of the widow s interest in the property and a challenge was made during her life time or after her death all that has to be shown by the con cerned Hindu female was that she had acquired the property and that She was possessed of the property at the point of time when her title was called into question
The question then was whether she became full owner In that case the widow as a limited owner sold the property but later on re purchased the self same property and was in possession at the date when the question of holding the property and  the nature of the right held by her had arisen
It was held that she was in possession as limited owner and after the Act she became full owner and not limited owner of the property
It was further held that  the legislative intent is abundantly loud and clear
To erase the injustice and remove the legal shackles by abolishing the concept of limited estate or the women s or widow s estate once and for all
To obvi ate hair splitting the legislature has made it abundantly clear that whatever be the property possessed by a Hindu female it will be Of her absolute ownership and not of limited ownership notwithstanding the position obtaining under the traditional Hindu law
In Gulwant Kaur  Anr
vs Mohinder Singh  Anr 1987 3 738 SCR 576 construing a letter written by the husband giving the property for wife s maintenance this court laid that section 14 is aimed at removing restrictions or limitations on the right of a female Hindu to enjoy as a full owner property possessed by her so long as her possession is traceable to a lawful origin that is to say if she has a vestige of a title
It makes no difference whether the property was acquired  by inheritance or devise etc
The right to main tenance is not a grant made for the first time without any pre existing right
Even if the instruments are silent as to the nature of the interest given to the widow in the proper ty and did not in so many terms prescribe that she has a limited interest in the property she would have no more than a limited interest in the property under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the  enactment of the Act
Hence a provision in the instrument prescribing that she would have only a limited interest in the property would be merely recording the true legal position and would not attract the applicability of sub sec
2 but would be governed by sub sec
1 of section 14
The conclusion was therefore held inescapable that where the property is allotted to a widow under an instrument decree etcfor her maintenance sub sec
2 of section 14 had no application
In Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thilanayakom Pillai  Anr 19881 1 SCR 780 under a parti tion deed limited 
estate in lieu of maintenance was created and this court held that the deed or any other ar rangement by which the husband gives property to his wife for maintenance need not specifically say thatit was given in lieu of maintenance
The right to maintenance is a per sonal obligation of the husband
If the wife is put in possession of the property with the right to take the income for her maintenance it must be presumed that the property was given to her in lieu of maintenance attracting section 14I and the  limited ownership ripened into full ownership
Accordingly it was held that section 141 attracted to the facts in that case
In Jaswant Kaur vs MajOr Harpal Singh under a will executed by the husband the widow was given a life estate which was held to be enlarged into an absolute estate attracting section 141but not section 142 as Hindu female acquired property under the instrument
Her title was trace able to her antecedent over her widow s estate by gift deed of 1954 to the appellant one of her daughters
The widow died in 1968The appellant filed a suit for injunction based on gift deed against the respondent another Sister claiming exclusive right title and interest in the property and also pleaded adverse possession
The respondent filed a cross suit for partition into two shares and claimed half share pleading that their mother was not in possession of 739 property on the date when the Act came into force
The appellant
acquired only limited ownership of their mother and on her death as a reversioner of her father she was entitled to partition
The High Court ultimately upheld the respondent s contention and held  that the widow did not acquire absolute estate under section 141
Being a limited owner what was conveyed by her to the appellant was only a limited estate and the appellant would not get the benefit of full ownership as she herself was not the limited owner under sec
141
On demise of the mother as reversioner the respondent was entitled to file the suit for partition
The appellant did not acquire title by adverse possession as she was a co owner and there was no right
Therefore sub sec
2 of section 14 would not attract
Munshi Singh vs Smt
Sohan Bai deadby LRs was a case where limited owner gifted away the property and was parted with possession and the plea of repurchase was negatived by all the courts
So this court held that section 14 1  does not apply
In Pearey Lal vs Ra meshwar Das 1963 Suppl
2 SCR 834 in construing a will vis a vis sections 75 82 86 of the this Court held that the limited estate is not enlarged into an absolute estate
In Karme vs Amru AIR 1971 SC 745 the attention of this Court to section 141 was not drawn nor had an occasion to angulate in this perspective
Therefore the ratio therein is of little assistance to the appellant
In Kalawatibai vs Soiryabai  Ors  the mother of the parties a Hindu widow gifted adverse posses sion as against the other co owner unless it was so asserted and acquiesced by the respondent
Therefore the decree for partition was upheld and the suit for injunction was dis missed
The ratio therein does not assist the appellant
Thus I hold that  the Act revolutionised the status of a Hindu female used section 141 as a tool to undo past injus tice to elevate her to equal status with dignity of person on par with man extinguished pre existing limitation of woman s estate or widow s estate known to Shastric law removed all the fetters to blossom the same into full Owner ship
The discrimination sufferred by Hindu female under Shastric law was exterminated by legislative fiat
The social change thus envisaged must be endeavoured to be given full vigour thrust and efficacy
Section 141 enlarges the restricted estate into full ownership when the Hindu female has pre existing right to maintenance etc
Sub sec
2 operates when the grant was made forthe first time Under the document with no pre existing right
Sub sec 2 therefore must be 
 740 read as an exception or a proviso to sub sec
Both the sub sections read with the explanation to be pragmaticably considered as a constituent integral scheme
The Court would sit in the armed chair of the testator or its maker and summon to its aid the attending circumstances to execute the instrument the relationship of the parties and to see whether the Hindu female acquired the property with vestige of pre existing right and the will gift deed order decree or an award of the civil court or in any of the forms  known to law was executed in recognition thereof or entitled under the existing law
If the finding is positive her limited estate though created with restrictive covenants in instru ment or an omission to expressly so mentioned in full par ticulars thereof in the instrument in that regard are of little consequence
Her limited estate gets blossomed into full ownership under sec
141 with a right to bequeath gift over alienation or to deal in any manner
recognised by law
If on the other hand the Hindu female acquires for the first time the tittle therein as a grant with restric tive estate under the instrument with no pre existing title or right sub section 2 of section 14 gets attracted and the restrictive
covenants
contained in the instrument would bind her
She remains to be a limited owner in terms there of
The subsequent alienee or transferee acquires no higher right thereunder than the legatee etc
The reversioner to the last male holder is not bound by such transfer and is entitled to succeed the estate on her demise in terms of the instrument
It is too late in the day to take retro grade step to reopen Tulasamma s ratio
In Civil Appeal No 630 of 1981 of Thota Madhav Rao Sri Narsimhalu his learned counsel contended that Thota Mani kyamma the respondent having come into posses sion and in enjoyment of the lands bequeathed under a will with a vested reminder in the appellant her rights are circumscribed
by the restrictions contained in the will and section 141 does not apply
He also contended that by application of section 141 to the instruments executed anterior to the Act amounts to giving retrospective operation of section 141
We find no substance in either contention
It is settled law that a legatee under a testamentary disposition is bound by the restrictive convenants contained therein
But distinction should be maintained between an ordinary legatee and a legateeHindu female coupled with vistage of pre existing title to the property but with a limited estate known to Shastric law as reflected in the impugned deed etc
Undoubt edly section 14 is not retroactive in its operation
Devolution of the property under the will would take effect after the demise of the testator and the legatee would be bound by the terms of gift over etc
The stranger legatee cannot take shelter under subsequent change of law to enlarge the opera tion of restrictive covenant to claim absolute ownership in the property bequeathed to her
741 But socio economic amelioration under the Act engulfs an instrument under the sweep of section 141 thereof it extin guishes the pre existing limited estate or restrictive condition and confer absolute and full ownership of the property possessed by a Hindu female as on the date when the Act had come into force namely June 17 1956
The courts are not giving retrospective operation to section 141 or to the instrument
The courts only would be applying the law to the facts round as on the date when the question arose to find whether legatee has pre existing vistage of title under law and the nature of possession of the property held by her and whether the legatee would get the benefit of section 141 of the Act
There need be no express recital even in the will of the enjoyment of the property devised under the will in lieu of maintenance as a limited owner for her life
Even if so mentioned it would be a reflection or restate ment of the law existing as in 1932 when the will was exe cuted
The respondent admittedly being a widow of the testator who
under Shastric law was obligated to provide maintenance to his wife and it being personal obligation the property bequeathed was in lieu of maintenance for her life
She was in enjoyment of the property and the benefi cial interest therein stood vested in her
As per existing law as in 1932 the widow as a legatee was entitled to wid ow s estate and she remained in possession on the date of the Act came into force and was in enjoyment of the income derived therefrom for her life
No one had a right to inter dict it
The restrictive covenant therefore does not stand an impediment to section 141 to have full play to extinguish the same and enlarge the limited estate of widow into an absolute ownership
The restrictions contained in the will though falls both under sub sec
2 as well as sub sec
1 of section 14 the right to maintenance being a pre existing right over property red ad rem section 141 would apply
The testamentary succession with a restrictive conditions in the will was obliterated
She became an absolute owner on or after June 17 1956
Accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that though the will created a restrictive covenant section 142 does not apply
Section 141 enlarged the widow s limited estate held by Manikyamma into an absolute ownership as full owner with a right to disposition by testamentary instrument or otherwise
As regards the claim in SLP No 2113 of 1980 is concerned admittedly the decree was granted with restrictive covenant to remain in possession of a portion of the house and enjoyment for life and by operation of the ratio in Tulasiamrna s case the restrictive covenant has enlarged into absolute estate
The appeal and special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs
VPR Appeal and Petitions dismissed


Summary:
P  executed a will on 2261924
The terms of the will provided that after the death of testator his wife shall enjoy the properties till her lifetime after her wife s lifetime the properties shall be enjoyed absolutely by his daughter and after her daughter the properties should go to her male children
A question arose as to whether on the basis of the will the daughter acquired a fife estate or an absolute estate
The High Court held that the fact that the testator directed that after her daughter the properties shall go to her male children clearly showed an intention that daughter s inter est in the properties was not absolute
Accordingly the High Court held that the daughter acquired only a life estate in the properties
Hence this appeal against the judgment of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
It cannot be held that thetestator of the will wanted to give absolute right in the property to his daugh ter
The intention of the testator to give absolute right in the property to his daughter is negatived by a clear mention in the will that after his daughter the property shah ulti mately go to her male children
In case the intention of the testator was to give the properties absolutely in favour of his daughter and not merely life interest then there was no question of mentioning that after her it should go to her male children
Accordingly the view taken by the High Court was correct
716C E 715 2
A contention neither raised in any of the courts below nor before the High Court nor in the petition for special leave cannot he permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court during the course of arguments
716F