Case: Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi

The facts may be briefly stated: One Gajju Mal had five sons, Badri Pershad, Ganesh Dass, Devi Chand, Narain Das and Ishar Das. The first four were by his first wife, whereas the 5th son Ishar Das was by his second wife Smt. Kanso Devi. Gajju Mal died in 1947 leaving him surviving the said five sons and Smt. Kanso Devi. On August 5, 1950 Tulsi Ram Seth was appointed by the parties as an arbitrator for resolving certain differences which had arisen relating to partition of the urban immovable properties and other assets and liabilities left by Gajju Mal. On October 31, 1950 the arbitrator gave his award. Under cl. 6 of this award Smt. Kanso Devi was awarded three sets of property including bungalow No. 20, Alipore Road, Delhi.The award was made the rule of the court. It was stated in the award that Smt. Kanso Devi would have a widows estate in the properties awarded to her. It was also provided that the immovable properties allotted and awarded to the various parties would be individually and exclusively owned by them and each party would be entitled to take physical or constructive possession of the properties allotted and awarded to his or her share.2. Badri Pershad, the appellant before us, filed a suit in August 1961 against the respondent Smt. Kanso Devi pleading inter alia that she was a limited owner of the property which had been given to her by the award and that she was trying to alienate the same and commit acts of waste to the prejudice of the reversioners. He asked for a perpetual injunction restraining her from committing acts of waste and from alienating the suit properties. The respondent contested the suit. On the plea of the parties the trial court framed seven issues out of which the material one was No. 4 which was in thesethe defendant was awarded life estate only in the property inApril 17, 1963 the trial court dismissed the suit holding that no act of waste on the part of the respondent had been proved and that she had inherited the property under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act 1937 and that the award had simply separated her share by metes and bounds, and under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act she had become full owner thereof. The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court.

Reasoning:
5. The case in the Courts below proceeded on the footing that all the properties left by Gajju Mal were his separate acquisition. It was apparently for that reason that the High Court gave a finding that before the partition effected by the arbitrator by means of the award, the five sons and the widow (respondent) of Gajju Mal enjoyed equal shares in the properties left bymanner of reading of the section is not warranted either on principle or authority.The section has to be read as a whole and it would depend on the facts of each case whether the same is covered by the first sub-section or sub-s. (2). The critical words in sub-s. (1) are "possessed" and "acquired". The word "possessed" has been used in its widest connotation and it may either be actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law.In the context in which it has been used in S. 14 it means the estate (state - Ed.) of owning or having in ones hand orat the commencement of the Act a female Hindu has a share in joint properties which are later on partitioned by metes and bounds and she gets possession of the properties allotted to her there can be no manner of doubt that she is not only possessed of that property at the time of the coming into force of the Act but has also acquired the same before itsword "acquired" in sub-s. (1) has also to be given the widest possible meaning. This would be so because of the language of the explanation which makes sub-s. (1) applicable to acquisition of property by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by a females own skill or exertion or by purchase or prescription or in any manner whatsoever.Sub-section (2) Section 14 is more in the nature of a proviso or an exception to sub-section (1). It can come 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 who is in possession of thecase is quite apposite for our purpose and we must hold that the respondent became a full owner of the suit properties when the Act came into force. The mere fact that there was a partition by means of arbitration which resulted in an award and a decree based on it would not bring the matter within sub-s. (2) as the provisions of sub-s. (1) became fully applicable particularly in view of the express terms of the Explanation.