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

1. This Appeal relates to property which belonged to one Akwak Singh, who died in the year 1894, leaving his widow Smt. Mehtab Kaur. In the year 1926, Smt. Mehtab Kaur gifted the disputed land to Harnam Singh, the predecessorin interest of the appellants. The collaterals of Akwak Singh at that time challenged the gift by filing a Suit for declaration that Smt. Mehtab Kaur, the widow, being a limited owner, could not make a gift of the property, and that the gift would not be binding on them as reversioners after her death. The defence taken, inter alia, in that Suit was that the property had come to Smt. Mehtab Kaur under a Will executed by Akwak Singh, so that she was absolute owner of the property and was entitled to make the gift. The Suit was dismissed, but, on Appeal, the Appellate Court held that the Will was not genuine and, consequently, decreed the Suit holding that the deed of gift will not be binding on the reversioners after the death of Smt. Mehtab Kaur. That decree became final, so that the claim of succession of Smt. Mehtab Kaur under the Will was finally negatived.2. On 17th June, 1956, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into force. Smt. Mehtab Kaur died on 16th October, 1957, and then on 21st January, 1958, the present respondents, as reversioners of Akwak Singh, brought a Suit for possession of the property, which had been gifted to Harnam Singh, against the appellants who had succeeded on the ground that, on the enforcement of the Act, Smt. Mehtab Kaur had become full owner of the property and consequently, the appellants were entitled to retain the property as donees under the deed of gift executed by her. The Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but on Appeal, the first appellate Court decreed the Suit in respect of ¾th share in the disputed property, holding that Smt. Mehtab, Kaur did not become full owner of the property on the enforcement of the Act. The Suit in respect of ¼th share was not decreed on the ground that the reversioners, who were entitled to that share, had not joined in the Suit as plaintiffs. In second Appeal, the High Court of Punjab upheld this decision of the first Appellate Court. The appellants have, therefore, come up to this Court in this Appeal by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
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.