Case: Kuldip Singh &amp; Others Vs. Surjau Sing &amp; Others

which the views expressed by this Court in the earlier three cases were considered. The Court, after considering the meaning given to the words "possessed" and possession" in Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Vol. 3. and Whartons Law Lexicon, 14th Ed., held, "It appears to us that the expression used in Section 14(1) of the Act was intended to cover cases of possession in law also, where lands may have descended to a female Hindu and she has not actually entered into them. It would, of course, cover the other cases of actual or constructive possession. On the language of Section 14(1), therefore, we hold that this provision will become applicable to any property which is owned by a female Hindu, even though she is not in actual, physical or constructive possession of that property." The Court then referred to the decision in the case of Gummala Pura Taggina Matada Kot trusrewami, (1959) Supp1 1. S.C.R. 968 (supra) and agreed with the earlier decision. that "possessed" in Section 14 is used in a broad sense and, in the context, means that state of owning or having in ones hand. or power. On further reference to the decision of this Court in Brahamdeo Singh, C. A. No. 51 of 1964 decided on 6.4.1967. (supra), the Court held, "It was thus made clear in that case that the property was held not to be possessed by the widow, because, the alienation made by her being binding on her, she had no longer any legal right left in that property even in the sense of being in the state of owning it. The case, thus, explains why, in cases of alienation or a gift made by a widow, even though that alienation or gift may not be binding on a reversioner, the property will not be held to be possessed by the widow, because the alienation or the gift would be binding on her for her life time and she, at least, would not possess any such rights under which she could obtain actual, or constructive possession from her transferee or donee. Having completely parted with her legal rights, in the property, she could not be said to be possessed of that property any longer. From the decision of this Court in" Eramma v. Varupana and others (Supra) the inference drawn was, expressed as follows : "This case also, thus, clarifies that the expression "possessed by" is not intended to apply to a case of mere possession without title, and that the Legislature intended this provision for cases where the Hindu female possesses the right of ownership of the property in question. Even mere physical possession of the property without the right of ownership will not attract the provisions of this Section. This case also, thus, supports our view that the expression "possessed by" was used in the sense of connoting state of ownership, and; while the Hindu female possesses the right of ownership, she would become full owner if the other conditions mentioned in the Section are fulfilled. The Section will, however, not apply at all to cases where the Hindu female may have parted with her rights so as to place herself in a position where she could, in no manner, exercise her rights of ownership in that property any longer."5. It is clear from the questions reproduced above that, on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mangal Singh and others (Supra), it has to be held in the present case that the property in dispute cannot be held to be possessed by Smt. Mehtab Kaur, because, after gifting the property to Harnam Singh and parting with the possession of the property, she was not left with any rights at all under which she could regain possession in her own life time. The gift executed by her was binding on her, even though it may not have been binding on the reversioner. She could not, therefore, avoid the deed of gift and could not claim back possession from Harnam Singh or his successors in interest. Having thus completely parted with her rights, she could not be held to be possessed of the property when the Act came into force and, consequently, she could not become full owner of it.6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants sought to distinguish all these cases decided by this Court on the ground that in none of those cases had the property been transferred by a deed of gift, so that those cases do not directly deal with the point arising in this case. We do not think that any such distinction is possible, because in those cases, this Court explained the full significance of the expression "possessed by a Hindu female" and the meaning accepted by the Court clearly covers the case of a female Hindu who may have parted with the property, by making a gift of it. Once she gifts away the property, she is no longer in a position to claim any legal right to that property; and in the absence of such a right, she cannot be held to be possessed of it. The same view has been expressed, by several High Courts when dealing with the effect of gifts or settlements made by a widow. Reference may be made to, the decisions of, the Patna High Court in Harak Singh v. Kdilash Singh, SIR 1958 Patna 581, the Punjab High Court in Amar Sigh v. Sewa Ram, ILR (1960) 2 Punj 348. the Orissa High Court in, Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukris Bewa AIR 1963 Orissa 167 and the Madras High Court in Kurruppuayar v. Periathambi Udayar, AIR 1966 Madras 165. In all these cases, gifts or settlements made by a widow were held to lead to the result that, the widow could not be held to be possessed of the property which she had gifted away or given away by settlement. The ground taken by the appellants, therefore has no force.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. It is clear from the questions reproduced above that, on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mangal Singh and others (Supra), it has to be held in the present case that the property in dispute cannot be held to be possessed by Smt. Mehtab Kaur, because, after gifting the property to Harnam Singh and parting with the possession of the property, she was not left with any rights at all under which she could regain possession in her own life time. The gift executed by her was binding on her, even though it may not have been binding on the reversioner. She could not, therefore, avoid the deed of gift and could not claim back possession from Harnam Singh or his successors in interest. Having thus completely parted with her rights, she could not be held to be possessed of the property when the Act came into force and, consequently, she could not become full owner ofdo not think that any such distinction is possible, because in those cases, this Court explained the full significance of the expression "possessed by a Hindu female" and the meaning accepted by the Court clearly covers the case of a female Hindu who may have parted with the property, by making a gift of it. Once she gifts away the property, she is no longer in a position to claim any legal right to that property; and in the absence of such a right, she cannot be held to be possessed of it. The same view has been expressed, by several High Courts when dealing with the effect of gifts or settlements made by a widow. Reference may be made to, the decisions of, the Patna High Court in Harak Singh v. Kdilash Singh, SIR 1958 Patna 581, the Punjab High Court in Amar Sigh v. Sewa Ram, ILR (1960) 2 Punj 348. the Orissa High Court in, Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukris Bewa AIR 1963 Orissa 167 and the Madras High Court in Kurruppuayar v. Periathambi Udayar, AIR 1966 Madras 165. In all these cases, gifts or settlements made by a widow were held to lead to the result that, the widow could not be held to be possessed of the property which she had gifted away or given away by settlement. The ground taken by the appellants, therefore has no force.