Case: Punithavalli Ammal Vs. Ramalingam (Minor) And Anr

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding that question of law may now be stated. One Somasundara Udayar of Poongavur village in Tanjavoor District died prior to 1937 leaving behind him his widow Sellathachi and two daughters Kuppaimal and Punithavalli Ammal. The properties left behind by the deceased were inherited by his widow and they were in her possession when the Act came into force on June 17, 1956. By virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act. Sellathachi became the full owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband. On July 13, 1956, she adopted the plaintiff-1st respondent in this appeal. Thereafter on June 19, 1957 she settled 9 acres 16 cents of land and half share in a house inherited by her from her husband on her daughter Punithavalli Ammal, the appellant in this appeal. The validity of this settlement deed was challenged by means of a suit by the adopted son even during the lifetime of Sellathachi. The settlor who was impleaded as the 1st defendant to the action died soon after the institution of the suit. Various contentions were raised in defence but it is unnecessary to go into them. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of Section 14 (1) Sellathachi was the full owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband and hence the adopted son cannot impugn the alienation made by her. This decision was upheld in appeal but in second appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras reversed that decision holding that the adoption of the plaintiff must be deemed to relate back to the date of the death of Somasundara Udayar and, therefore, Sellathachi was incompetent to make the impugned alienation. The correctness of this finding is in issue in this appeal.

Reasoning:
6. The explanation to the section is not necessary for our present purpose. It was conceded at the Bar that Sellathachi was in possession of the property in dispute on the date the Act came into force. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, she became the full owner of the property on that date. 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 is conflicts with the rights conferred on a Hindu female under section 14 (1) of the Act. In Sukhram v. Gauri Shankar, (1968) 1 SCR 476   = (AIR 1968 SC 365  ) this Court held that though a male member of a Hindu family 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 Munna Lal v. Rajkumar, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 418 = (AIR 1962 SC 1493  )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 Madas 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 impermissible. On the point under consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Yamunabai v. Ram Maharaj Shreedhar Maharaj (AIR 1960 Bom 463  ), lays down the law correctly.