MUKATLAL versus KAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 298, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428
Mukatlal
v.
Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2024)
16 May 2024 
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce 
her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family 
property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnotes
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property of a female 
Hindu to be her absolute property – Right of the legal heir 
of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the 
unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1), 
when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of 
the suit land:
Held: For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family 
estate u/s. 14(1), the Hindu female must not only be possessed 
of the property but she must have acquired the property and such 
acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at 
a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance 
or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by 
prescription – On going through the pleadings in the Revenue 
suit for partition filed by legal heir, it is clear that that the widow 
or the legal heir himself were never in possession of the suit 
property – As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that 
the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and appellant-
beneficiary of the
unpartitioned estate by way of Will, had consented 
to give half share of the suit property to the legal heir on his 
demand – This assertion was denied by appellant – Widow was 
never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit 
was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession 
and the same was dismissed and she was held only entitled to 
receive maintenance from the undivided estate – This finding of 
the civil Court was never challenged – Since, widow was never 
in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
299
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership u/s. 14(1) 
could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff by virtue 
of inheritance – Thus, the impugned judgments restoring the 
judgment and decree of the Revenue Court that the plaintiff being 
the sole legal heir of the widow has coparcenary rights over the 
lands belonging to widow’s husband, cannot be sustained and 
are set aside. [Paras 17, 24-28]
Case Law Cited
M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. A. 
Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others (2023) SCC 
OnLine SC 1078 – relied on.
Ram Vishal(dead) by LRs. And Others v. Jagannath 
and Another (2004) 9 SCC 302; Vasant and Anr. v. 
Dattu & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 160; Munni Devi alias Nathi 
Devi (Dead) Thr LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal 
(Dead) Thr LRs & Ors. [2022] 3 SCR 876 : (2022) SCC 
OnLine SC 643 – referred to.
List of Acts
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
List of Keywords
Right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property; 
Full ownership; Undivided joint family estate; Inheritance or devise; 
In lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance; Suit for partition; 
Absolute ownership.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 1029 of 2006
Appearances for Parties
Puneet Jain, Mrs. Christi Jain, Mann Arora,
Ms. Akriti Sharma, Ms. 
Lisha, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Atul Jha, Vinayak Sharma, 
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.

300
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The instant appeal by special leave challenges the final judgment and 
order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Division Bench 
of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029 
of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant questioning 
the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 passed 
by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil 
Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 was dismissed. 
3.	
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their 
rank in the Revenue Court.
4.	
In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter in 
the proper perspective, it would be beneficial to reproduce the 
genealogical table/pedigree of the families of the parties.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
301
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
Chronological List of Events: -
Dates 
Event
After the death of Kishan Lal, Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) 
property devolved among his two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal.
1912
Mangilal passed away. (Survived by his son, Kanwarlal)
1929
Madho Lal passed away (Issueless, survived by his 
widow- Smt. Nandkanwarbai)
09.02.1949
Kanwarlal executed a will in favour of his son, Mukat 
Lal (appellant herein).
1954
Kanwarlal Passed Away.
First Set of Legal Proceedings
1958
Smt. Nandkanwarbai filed Civil Suit No. 11of 1958 for 
declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit 
property. 
21.05.1959
Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958 was dismissed however the 
Civil Judge held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had the right 
to be maintained out of the suit property.
12.06.1959
Smt. Nandkanwarbai adopted Kailash Chand(original 
respondent herein).
12.07.1966
Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 64 of 1966 against order 
dated 21.05.1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958.
09.02.1968
Civil Judge allowed Appeal No. 64 of 1966 and set aside 
the order to the extent that it gave Smt. Nandkanwarbai 
the right to be maintained out of the suit property.
Aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred SB Civil 
Second Appeal No. 347 of 1968
1972
Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away. Kailash Chand was 
substituted as legal representative of deceased Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai in 1973.
20.03.1973
High Court allowed SB Civil Second Appeal No. 347 of 
1968 and
held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled 
to the right of maintenance out of the suit property, she 
being the widow of the deceased coparcener in joint 
Hindu family property.
302
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Present Proceedings
20.06.1979
Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 under section 53 of 
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 was filed by Kailash Chand, 
for partition of the suit property, in the capacity of the 
legal heir of his adopted mother Smt. Nandkanwarbai. 
14.12.1983
Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 was allowed and decreed 
by Sub Divisional Officer, Bundi wherein it was held 
that Kailash Chand being the sole legal heir of Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai has coparcenary rights over the lands 
belonging to Madho Lal. 
1984
Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 12 of 1984 challenging 
order dated 14.12.1983 before Revenue Appellate 
Authority, Kota. 
31.01.1986
Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota allowed Appeal No. 12 
of 1984 and decree passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, 
Bundi dated 14.12.1983 was set aside. 
1986
Kailash Chand preferred Second Appeal being S.A. 120 
of 1986 before Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
12.03.1992
Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed S.A. 120 of 1986
1993
Kailash Chand filed a Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ 
Petition No. 1587 of 1993 before High Court challenging 
the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 
12.03.1992. 
21.07.2006
Ld. Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 
of 1993 and set aside the judgments passed by Revenue 
Appellate Authority, Kota and Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
2006
Mukat Lal filed a Writ Appeal being DB Special Appeal 
(Writ) No. 1029 of 2006 before the Division Bench. 
02.11.2017
Ld.
Division Bench dismissed DB Special Appeal (Writ) 
No. 1029 of 2006 and upheld the order of the Ld. Single 
Judge dated 21.07.2006.
06.02.2018
Present SLP was filed. 
5.	
The core question of law involved in this appeal is as to the right 
of the plaintiff Kailash Chand being legal heir of Hindu widow Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
303
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Succession 
Act’) by filing a suit in the Revenue Court.
6.	
Few facts, most germane and relevant to the issue are required to be 
extracted from the chronology of dates and events. The suit property 
was owned by Kishan Lal who had two sons, namely, Mangilal 
and Madho Lal. Madho Lal was married to Smt. Nandkanwarbai. 
Mangilal had a son Kanwarlal. Mangilal died in the year 1912 
whereas Madho Lal died issueless in 1929. Smt. Nandkanwarbai 
claims to have adopted plaintiff Kailash Chand on 12th June, 1959 
that is nearly after 30 years from the date of death of Madho Lal. 
Kanwarlal had executed a will of the entire unpartitioned estate in 
favour of defendant Mukat Lal(appellant herein) on 9th February, 
1949. Shri Kanwarlal passed away in the year 1954. Thus, the suit 
property devolved upon defendant Mukat Lal under the will executed 
by late Shri Kanwarlal.
7.	
Smt. Nandkanwarbai, widow of late Madho Lal filed a Civil Suit No. 
11 of 1958 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit 
property contending that the property in question was a joint Hindu 
family property and that the will allegedly executed by late Kanwarlal 
was illegal. It was further contended in the suit that defendant Mukat 
Lal was not entitled to any share in the HUF property by virtue of
the will. The Civil Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and 
decree dated 21st May, 1959 while recognizing the right of Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai only to the extent of receiving maintenance from 
the suit property. 
8.	
Smt. Nandkanwarbai, did not challenge the said judgment any 
further. However, defendant Mukat Lal on attaining majority, preferred 
an appeal against the judgment dated 21st May, 1959 which was 
allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 9th 
February, 1968 and the judgment and decree passed by the civil 
Court in favour of Smt. Nandkanwarbai to the extent of the right to 
receive maintenance from the suit property was set aside. 
9.	
Being aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred a Second Appeal 
No. 347 of 1968 before the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan 
High Court. During the pendency of the said second appeal, in the 
year 1972 Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away and her legal heir i.e. 
plaintiff Kailash Chand was taken on record. Learned Single Judge of
304
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment dated 20th March, 1973 allowed 
the second appeal filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai and restored the 
civil Court’s judgment to the extent of her right to be maintained from 
the suit property. Resultantly, the status of defendant Mukat Lal as 
being the beneficiary of the suit lands as being the legatee of the 
will made by his father Shri Kanwarlal stood crystallized.
10.	 The plaintiff Kailash Chand filed Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 for 
partition of the suit property before the Revenue Court claiming that 
Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to a rightful share in the property 
by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
11.	 The present appeal arises from the aforesaid Revenue Suit No. 37 of 
1979 seeking partition which culminated in the impugned judgment 
dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of 
the Rajasthan High Court.
12.	 It may be reiterated that the issue regarding title and possession 
over the suit property stands concluded against Smt. Nandkanwarbai 
(deceased widow) vide judgment and decree dated 21st May, 
1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958. The said Civil Suit was 
dismissed by the competent Court qua the relief of possession 
and title while recognizing the right to Smt. Nandkanwarbai only 
to the extent of receiving maintenance from the estate. Admittedly, 
Smt. Nandkanwarbai did not challenge the judgment and decree 
dated 21st May, 1959 and
thus, it attained finality to the extent of 
possession and title. Apropos, there is no dispute qua the fact that 
Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property.
13.	 Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant 
advanced the following pertinent submissions and urged that the 
Division Bench erred in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by 
the appellant affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and 
restoring the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court.
(i)	
That Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no interest, either limited or 
otherwise, in the suit land which could fructify into absolute 
ownership under section 14(1) of the Succession Act and the 
Division Bench erred in treating “Charge over property towards 
Maintenance” as possession over the property.
(ii)	
It was contended that in order to attract Section 14(1) of the 
Succession Act, there must be a “Property possessed by the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
305
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
Hindu Women” but in the present case, the suit for possession 
and title filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai was dismissed and hence 
she was never in possession, either legal or actual, over the 
suit property.
iii)	
That the civil suit for title and possession filed by Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai having been dismissed, the judgment of the civil 
Court operated as res judicata and hence the relief could not 
have been granted to her adopted son[Kailash Chand(plaintiff)] 
in the subsequent partition suit filed in the Revenue Court.
iv)	
While placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ram 
Vishal (dead) by LRs. And Others v. Jagannath and Another1, 
it was contended that since Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never 
in possession of the suit property which were agricultural 
lands’ either by inheritance or in lieu of maintenance, as a 
consequence, Section 14(1) of the Succession Act could not 
be applied so as to confer proprietary rights upon her adopted 
son [Kailash Chand (plaintiff)].
v)	
Learned counsel, Shri Jain further contended that reliance 
placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision of Vasant 
and Anr. v. Dattu & Ors.2, is ex-facie erroneous as the said 
judgment deals with issues related to properties held by the 
joint Hindu family having several surviving coparceners and not 
that of a sole surviving coparcener.
He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the 
impugned judgments.
14.	 E-converso, Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate 
representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed 
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and 
contended that the issue in the present case regarding the ambit 
of the rights of a female Hindu on the undivided joint Hindu family 
estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act has been settled 
by this Court in the case of Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi(Dead) Thr 
LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal(Dead) Thr LRs & Ors.3 
1	
(2004) 9 SCC 302
2	
(1987) 1 SCC 160
3	
[2022] 3 SCR 876 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 643
306
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
He placed reliance on the pertinent observations (reproduced infra) 
made by this Court in Munni Devi (supra) and implored the Court 
to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgments.
15.	 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions 
advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment 
and the material available on record.
16.	 The plank contention of Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel 
representing the appellant for assailing the impugned judgments 
was that the deceased widow Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in 
possession of the suit property and as a consequence, her adopted 
son, plaintiff Kailash Chand, was precluded from claiming partition 
of the suit property by virtue of succession and hence, the Revenue 
suit was not maintainable. He had placed reliance on the findings 
arrived at by the civil Court in the suit filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai 
to buttress this contention.
17.	 At the outset, it may be noted that in so far as the aspect that Smt. 
Nandkanwarbai(deceased widow) had never been in possession 
of the suit property is concerned, the same is virtually an admitted 
position from the record because she never challenged the judgment 
and decree dated 21st May, 1959 whereby the suit filed by her for 
declaration of title and possession was dismissed by the civil Court 
and she was held only entitled to receive maintenance from the 
undivided estate. Thus, indisputably neither Smt.
Nadkanwarbai nor 
the plaintiff Kailash Chand were ever in possession of the suit land.
18.	 In the case of Munni Devi(supra) which was heavily relied upon by 
the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Bhattacharya, the admitted 
position was that Bhonri Devi, widow of Late Dhannalalji was actually 
residing in the suit property during the time the coparcener Shri 
Harinarayanji was alive and even after his death, she continued to 
reside in the said house and used to collect the rents from the tenants 
who were occupying the suit property till the date of filing of suit.
19.	 A Bench of two Honourable Judges of this Court after considering 
the gamut of Section 14 of the Succession Act in the case of Munni 
Devi(supra) observed as below: - 
“14. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt 
that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance was not and is not 
an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
307
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
matter of grace and generosity. It is a tangible right against the 
property, which flows from the spiritual relationship between 
the husband and the wife. The said right was recognised and 
enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law, which existed even 
before the passing of the 1937 or the 1946 Acts. Those Acts 
merely gave statutory backing recognising the position as 
was existing under the Shastric Hindu Law. Where a Hindu 
widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of 
the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of 
the said property. She is entitled to retain the possession of 
that property in lieu of her right to maintenance. Section 14(1) 
and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction 
in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and 
promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved 
by the said legislation. As explained in V. Tulasamma 
(supra) case, the words “possessed by” used in Section 
14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include 
the state of owning a property, even though the Hindu 
woman is not in actual or physical possession of the 
same. Of course, it is equally well settled that the 
possession of the widow, must be under some vestige 
of a claim, right or title, because the section does not 
contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser 
without any right or title.
15. The undisputed facts in the instant case are
that 
Dhannalalji, the husband of Bhonri Devi expired in 1936, 
Ganeshnarayanji, the father-in-law of Bhonri Devi expired 
in 1938 and Harinarayanji, the brother of Ganeshnarayanji 
died on 11.11.1953. Daulalji was adopted by Sri Bakshji 
in the year 1916. Harinarayanji, Ganeshnarayanji and 
Sri Bakshji had common ancestor Gopalji. It is also not 
disputed that the suit property was an ancestral property 
in the hands of Harinarayanji and Ganeshnarayanji. It is 
also not disputed that Bhonri Devi was staying in the 
suit property before the death of Harinarayanji, and 
after his death she was in possession and in charge 
of the said property, and was maintaining herself by 
collecting rent from the tenants who were occupying 
part of the suit property.
308
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. Now it appears from the documents on record that 
the rent notes (Exhibit A-2 to A-11) executed during the 
period 1955 to 1965 in respect of the part of the suit 
property, were executed in the name of Bhonri Devi. 
The concerned defendants in the suit had also filed their 
written statements, stating that they were paying rent to 
Bhonri Devi only. It further appears from the document 
(Exhibit A-13) that Daulalji had raised an objection 
against Bhonri Devi paying the house tax in respect of 
the suit property and that the Municipal Commissioner, 
Jaipur vide order dated 28.03.1957 had observed that 
Bhonri Devi was paying the tax in the past also. An 
appeal against the said order was preferred by Daulalji 
before the Administrator of Municipal Council, Jaipur 
however the same was also rejected vide the order 
dated 28.01.1959. It was observed therein that “In this 
case there is a dispute regarding ownership. Municipal 
Commissioner who is the reversing authority in his 
judgment dated 28.03.1957 held that Bhonri Devi who 
was paying tax to the municipality in the past, should 
pay the tax and for question of title the concerned party 
should seek remedy in the Civil Courts.”
17. From the said documents it clearly emerges that 
Bhonri Devi was paying the house tax prior to 1956 and 
was collecting the rent from the tenants prior to and after 
1956. Pertinently from the document Exhibit-54, it emerges 
that in 1940
Bhonri Devi, when she was staying with her 
in-laws, had no source of maintenance, and therefore she 
was granted Rs. 2.50 per month by way of maintenance, 
by the Punya Department of the Government. She claiming 
to be a PARDANASHEEN lady had authorised Daulalji 
to collect the said amount of maintenance. The said 
document clearly shows that Bhonri Devi was residing in 
the suit house since 1940. Be that as it may, it was well 
established that Bhonri devi was in possession of the 
suit house before and after the death of Harinarayanji 
in 1953 and had continued to remain in possession 
thereafter and was collecting rent from the tenants 
who were in occupation of part of the suit premises
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
309
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
since 1955, till the date of filing of the suit in 1965 by 
the plaintiff Daulalji.
18. The afore-stated facts and circumstances clearly 
established that Bhonri devi had long settled possession of 
the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-
existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of 
the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner 
of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said 
Act. Her exclusive possession of suit property after the 
death of Harinarayanji in 1953 i.e., prior to coming into 
force of the said Act in 1956, was not only not disputed 
but was admitted by the plaintiff Daulalji in the plaint itself. 
Her pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of 
the HUF of her husband was also well established. The 
submission of Mr. Jain for the appellants that mere right to 
maintenance would not ipso facto create any charge on the 
property and that for creating legal charge recognising right 
of Hindu women to maintenance required execution of a 
document, device or agreement, cannot be countenanced. 
Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with 
her settled legal possession of the property, would 
be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a 
vestige of right or claim in the property, though no 
document was executed or specific charge was created 
in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in 
the
property.
19. It may be noted that in the Will executed by Harinarayanji 
in favour of Daulalji, there was no mention of the suit 
property. What was stated in the Will was that whatever 
movable and immovable property, which belonged to 
Harinarayanji would be devolved upon Daulalji. It was only 
in the Probate proceedings filed by Daulalji in respect of the 
said Will, he had shown the suit property in the Schedule. 
It is true that the objections raised by Bhonri Devi against 
granting of Probate in favour of Daulalji were not accepted 
by the Probate Court, and the alleged Will executed by 
Harinarayanji in favour of Bhonri Devi was also not proved 
by her in the said proceedings. Nonetheless, in view of her
310
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
pre-existing right to maintenance from the estate of the 
HUF of her husband and in view of her exclusive settled 
possession of the suit property prior to and after the 
commencement of the Act of 1956, the only conclusion 
which could be drawn, would be that Bhonri Devi had 
acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing 
right to maintenance, and that she had held the suit 
property as the full owner and not limited owner by 
virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act of 1956.
20. As stated earlier, Hindu woman’s right to maintenance 
is a tangible right against the property which flows from 
the spiritual relationship between the husband and the 
wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the 
Shastric Hindu Law, long before the passing of the 1937 
and the 1946 Acts. Where a Hindu widow is found to 
be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF 
property, that itself would create a presumption that 
such property was earmarked for realization of her 
pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly 
when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any 
alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing 
right of maintenance. The word “possessed by” and 
“acquired” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest 
amplitude and include the state of owning a property. 
It is by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, that the 
Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged 
into an absolute
right, when such property is possessed by 
her whether acquired before or after the commencement 
of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance.” 
(emphasis supplied)
20.	 Thus it is clear from the above observations and findings in the case 
of Munni Devi (supra) that this Court after taking into consideration 
the pre-existing right of Bhonri Devi to maintenance from the estate 
of the HUF of her husband and her exclusive settled possession over 
the suit property concluded that she had acquired the suit property 
in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that she had held 
the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of 
Section 14(1) of the Succession Act.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
311
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
21.	 Thus, what we are required to adjudicate in the present case is as 
to whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either 
actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff Kailash Chand being 
the legal heir of Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to institute 
a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the 
succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property. In 
this very context, we would like to gainfully refer to the judgments 
of this Court which were relied upon by Shri Puneet Jain, learned 
counsel for the appellant. 
22.	 In the case of Ram Vishal (supra) this Court held as under: -
“16. In our view, the authority in Raghubar Singh case 
[(1998) 6 SCC 314] can be of no assistance to the 
respondent. As has been held by this Court, a pre-
existing right is a sine qua non for conferment of a full 
ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession 
Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of 
the property but she must have acquired the property. 
Such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance 
or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance 
or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or by her own 
skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. 
In the present matter, it is nobody’s case that Manki had 
got possession of the 1/4th share in lieu of maintenance 
or in arrears of maintenance. It was also not their case 
that there was
a partition of the property and that in such 
partition, she had been given the property. A mere right 
of maintenance without actual acquisition in any manner 
is not sufficient to attract Section 14.”
(emphasis supplied)
23.	 Further, in the case of M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and 
Others v. A. Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others4, this 
Court held as under: -
“4. This argument of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial 
Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate 
4	
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1078
312
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Court as well as by the Second Appellate Court on the 
reasoning that after the death of Sami Vaidyar, his son 
Sukumaran succeeded in the property in year 1942 itself. 
Thereafter, Sukumaran and later the children succeeding 
Sukumaran had the right over the property which 
undisputedly remained in their possession. Section 14 sub-
Section (1) had no application in this case. The essential 
ingredient of Section 14 sub-Section (1) is possession 
over the property. Admittedly the plaintiff was never 
in possession of the property. The possession was 
always that of the defendant and therefore Section 14 
sub-Section (1) would not be applicable. In Ram Vishal 
(dead) by lrs. v. Jagan Nath. reported in (2004) 9 SCC 
302 the position of possession being a pre-requisite to 
sustain a claim under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the 
1956 Act was confirmed in Para 16 which is quoted below:
‘16. In our view, the authority in Raghubar 
Singh case [(1998) 6 SCC 314] can be of no 
assistance to the respondent. As has been held 
by this Court, a pre-existing right is a sine 
qua non for conferment of a full ownership 
under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession 
Act. The Hindu female must not only be 
possessed of the property but she must have 
acquired the property. Such acquisition must 
be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at 
a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears 
of maintenance” or by gift or by her own skill
or 
exertion, or by purchase or by prescription…’
5. As per the law as it existed at their relevant time the 
property which was an agricultural property would devolve 
upon the male child and daughters would get only a 
limited right to maintenance till, they were married and 
the widow would be entitled to maintenance from the 
income from the property till her death or remarriage. As 
per the family Settlement Deed dated 12.03.1938 which 
was relied upon by both the parties, the property in dispute 
was specifically allotted to Sami Vaidyar and his only son 
Sukumaran. Therefore, the widow of Sami Vaidyar i.e.,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
313
Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.
Choyichi will not have any right over the property. The 
findings of all the courts below were that Choyichi was 
never in possession of the property and therefore she 
would not get the right, as claimed by her under Section 
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.” 
(emphasis supplied)
24.	 Seen in the light of the ratio of the above judgments, it is clear that 
for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate 
under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not 
only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the 
property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance 
or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of 
maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase 
or by prescription. 
25.	 Even on going through the pleadings in the Revenue suit for partition 
filed by plaintiff Kailash Chand, it is clear that there is not even a 
whisper in the plaint that Smt. Nandkanwarbai or the plaintiff Kailash 
Chand himself were ever in possession of the suit property. As a 
matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that the suit property 
was a joint Hindu family property and defendant-Mukat Lal(appellant 
herein) had consented to give half share of the suit property to the 
plaintiff Kailash Chand on his demand. This assertion was denied 
by defendant-Mukat Lal. 
26.	 In this context, when we
consider the effect of the earlier civil suit 
instituted by Smt. Nadkanwarbai(deceased widow), it becomes 
clear that she was never in possession of the suit property because 
the civil suit was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as 
possession and the same was dismissed. This finding of the civil 
Court was never challenged. Since, Smt. Nadkanwarbai was never in 
possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue 
suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of 
the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted 
son, plaintiff Kailash Chand by virtue of inheritance.
27.	 On close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the learned Single 
Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that 
there is no consideration in these judgments that the predecessor 
of the plaintiff Kailash Chand or the plaintiff himself were ever in
314
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
possession of the suit property or had acquired the same in the 
manner as indicated in the judgment of M. Sivadasan (supra).
28.	 As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments 
do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained.
29.	 Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by 
learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 
rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set 
aside. 
30.	 Consequently, the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff 
is dismissed.
31.	 The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
32.	 Decree be prepared accordingly.
33.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.