Case: Bai Vajia (Dead) By L.Rs Vs. Thakorbhai Chelabhai and Others

commencement of the Act.The Explanation declares that the property mentioned in sub section (1) includes both movable and immovable property and then proceeds to enumerate the modes of acquisition of various kinds of property which the sub-section would embrace. Such modes of acquisition are:(a) by inheritance,(b) by devise,(c) at a partition,(d) in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance,(e) by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage,(f) by her own skill or exertion,(g) by purchase,(h) by prescription,(i) in any other manner what-so-ever, and(j) any such property held by her as "stridhana" immediately before the commencement of this Act.A reference to the Hindu law as it prevailed immediately before the commencement of the Act would lead one to the conclusion that the object of the Explanation was to make it clear beyond doubt that all kinds of property which fell within the ambit of the term "stridhana" would be held by the owner thereof as a full owner and not as a limited owner. Reference may in this connection be made to the following enumeration of "Stridhana" in paragraph 125 of Mullas Hindu law:(1) Gifts and bequests from relations.(2) Gifts and bequests from strangers.(3) Property obtained on partition.(4) Property given in lieu of maintenance.(5 ) Property acquired by inheritance.(6) Property acquired by mechanical arts(7) Property obtained by compromise.(8) Property acquired by adverse possession.(9) Property purchased with stridhana or with savings of income of stridhana.(10) Property acquired from sources other than those mentioned above.These heads of property are then dealt with at length by Mulla in paragraphs 126 to 135 of his treatise. Prior to the commencement of the Act, the Hindu female did not enjoy full ownership in respect of all kinds of "Stridhana" and her powers to deal with it further varied from school to school. There was a sharp difference in this behalf between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. And then the Bombay, Benaras, Madras and Mithila schools also differed from each other on the point. Succession to different kinds of "Stridhana" did not follow a uniform pattern. The rights of the Hindu female over "Stridhana" varied according to her status as a maiden, a married woman and a widow. The source and nature of the property acquired also placed limitations on her ownership and made a difference to the mode of succession thereto. A comparison of the content s of the Explanation with those of paragraph 125 of Mullas Hindu Law would show that the two are practically identical. It follows that the Legislature in its wisdom took pains to enumerate specifically all kinds of "Stridhana" in the Explanation and declared that the same would form "property" within the meaning of that word as used in sub-section (1). This was done, in the words of Bhagwati, J, "to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu society". It was a step in the direction of practical recognition of equality of the sexes and was meant to elevate women from a subservient position in the economic field to a pedestal where they could exercise full powers of enjoyment and disposal of the property held by them as owners, untrammelled by artificial limitations placed on their right of ownership by a society in which the will of the dominant male prevailed to bring about a subjugation of the opposite sex. It was also a step calculated to ensure uniformity in the law relating to the nature of ownership of "Stridhana". This dual purpose underlying the Explanation must be borne in mind and given effect to when the section is subjected to analysis and interpretation, and sub-section (2) is not to be given a meaning which would defeat that purpose and negative the legislative intent, if the language used so warrants. A Combined reading of the two sub-sections an d the Explanation leaves no doubt in our minds that sub-section (2) does not operate to take property acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance (which is property specifically included in the enumeration contained in the Explanation) out of the purview of sub-section (1).14. . Tulasammas case (supra) having, in our opinion been decided correctly, the appeal in hand must succeed as the facts in the latter are on all fours with those in the former. Mr. Desai did vehemently argue that this was not so inasmuch as by the decree dated August 18, 1909 the ownership of the land in dispute was vested in Dayalji and Dayabhai sons of Mohanbhai and Motabhai son of Gulabbhai while Bai Vajia was only given the right to possess it for her life-the ownership remaining all along in the said three persons, but this argument does not find favour with us. It has to be noted that so long as she lived, Bai Vajia was to have full enjoyment of and complete control over the land, barring any right to alienate it. Such a right was also taken away from the said three persons. The arrangement meant that whatever rights existed in relation to the land during the life-time of Bai Vajia, were exercisable by her alone and by nobody else. Not even the said three persons could deal with the land in any manner whatsoever, and if they did, Bai Vajia had the right to have their acts declared null and void during her life-time. After the land was made over to her she became its owner for life although with a limited right and therefore only as a limited owner. Under the decree the land vested in the said three persons only so long as they were not dispossessed of it at the instance of Bai Vajia in accordance with the terms stated therein. As soon as Bai Vajia took possession of the land, no rights of any kind whatsoever in relation thereto remained with them and thus they ceased to be the owners for the span of Bai Vajias life.15.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We find that only that part of this argument which is interpretative of sub-section (1) is correct, namely, that it is only some kind of "limited ownership" that would get enlarged into full ownership and that where no ownership at all vested in the concerned Hindu female, no question of the applicability of the sub-section wouldplain reading of sub-section (1) makes it clear that the concerned Hindu female must have limited ownership in property, which limited ownership would get enlarged by the operation of that sub section. If it was intended to enlarge any sort of a right which could in no sense be described as ownership, the expression "and not as a limited owner" would not have been used at all and becomes redundant, which is against the well-recognised principle of interpretation of statutes that the Legislature does not employ meaninglessthe reasons which weighed with Bhagwati and Fazal Ali, JJ., in rejecting this argument we find no substance in it as we are in full agreement with these reasons and the same may not be reiterated here. However we may emphasize one aspect of the matter which flows from a scrutiny of subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act and the explanation appended thereto. For the applicability of sub-section ( 1) two conditions must co- exist,the concerned female Hindu must be possessed of property and(2) such property must be possessed by her as a limited owner.If these two condition s are fulfilled, the sub-section gives her the right to hold the property as a full owner irrespective of the fact whether she acquired it before or after the commencement of the Act.The Explanation declares that the property mentioned in sub section (1) includes both movable and immovable property and then proceeds to enumerate the modes of acquisition of various kinds of property which the sub-section would embrace.Tulasammas case (supra) having, in our opinion been decided correctly, the appeal in hand must succeed as the facts in the latter are on all fours with those in the former.Desai did vehemently argue that this was not so inasmuch as by the decree dated August 18, 1909 the ownership of the land in dispute was vested in Dayalji and Dayabhai sons of Mohanbhai and Motabhai son of Gulabbhai while Bai Vajia was only given the right to possess it for her life-the ownership remaining all along in the said three persons, but this argument does not find favour with us. It has to be noted that so long as she lived, Bai Vajia was to have full enjoyment of and complete control over the land, barring any right to alienate it. Such a right was also taken away from the said three persons. The arrangement meant that whatever rights existed in relation to the land during the life-time of Bai Vajia, were exercisable by her alone and by nobody else. Not even the said three persons could deal with the land in any manner whatsoever, and if they did, Bai Vajia had the right to have their acts declared null and void during her life-time. After the land was made over to her she became its owner for life although with a limited right and therefore only as a limited owner. Under the decree the land vested in the said three persons only so long as they were not dispossessed of it at the instance of Bai Vajia in accordance with the terms stated therein. As soon as Bai Vajia took possession of the land, no rights of any kind whatsoever in relation thereto remained with them and thus they ceased to be the owners for the span of Bai Vajias life.