Analyzed by:- Pritisha Mahinta

student at presidency University

HELD BY: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

CITATION: Civil Appeal No(s). __ of 2024 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 12842 of 2018

CASE TITLE: Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors.

DATE OF ORDER: 16 May 2024

BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. R. Gavai and Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

PARTIES: Petitioner: Mukatlal

Respondent: Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors.

SUBJECT

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to find out whether a female Hindu’s lack of possession of property can prevent her descendants from claiming partition and succession rights. The appellant, represented by Shri Puneet Jain, contended that Smt. Nandkanwarbai, the deceased widow, was never in possession of the suit property. Thus, this lack of possession invalidates her adopted son Kailash Chand’s claim for partition of the property by virtue of succession, thereby rendering the Revenue suit not maintainable. Conversely, Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, representing the respondents, countered these claims by asserting that the issue of a female Hindu’s rights under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, with the help of the concept that possession includes a charge for maintenance, which was granted to Smt. Nandkanwarbai by the civil court, thereby fulfilling the requirement for Section 14(1) to apply.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Section 14(1) – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

BRIEF FACTS

• The case involves a protracted legal battle over the inheritance of a property originally owned by Kishan Lal. Kishan Lal had two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal. Mangilal, died in 1912 who had a son named Kanwarlal. Madho Lal, who died without children in 1929, was married to Smt. Nandkanwarbai. Kanwarlal inherited the property after Mangilal’s death in 1912. Later, in 1949, Kanwarlal executed a will bequeathing the unpartitioned estate to his son, Mukat Lal. Kanwarlal passed away in 1954, and thus, passed the unpartitioned property to Mukat Lal according to the will.
• In 1958, Smt. Nandkanwarbai initiated Civil Suit No. 11, seeking a declaration of title and possession of the property, arguing that it was joint Hindu family property and that the will executed by Kanwarlal was invalid. She also claimed that Mukat Lal had no right to the property as per the will. On May 21, 1959, the civil court dismissed her suit, recognizing only her right to receive maintenance from the property and denying her claims of possession and title. This judgment was not challenged further by Smt. Nandkanwarbai, thereby attaining finality regarding the issue of possession and title.
• Upon reaching the age of majority, Mukat Lal filed an appeal against the civil court’s decision. On February 9, 1968, the Senior Civil Judge set aside the earlier judgment that had granted Smt. Nandkanwarbai had the right to maintenance, effectively denying her any claim to the property. Aggrieved by this decision, Smt. Nandkanwarbai filed a second appeal (No. 347 of 1968) before the Rajasthan High Court. During the pendency of this appeal, Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away in 1972, and her legal heir, Kailash Chand, who she claimed to have adopted in 1959, was brought on record.
• The Rajasthan High Court, in a judgment dated March 20, 1973, allowed the second appeal filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai. The court restored the civil court’s decision to the extent of her right to be maintained from the suit property. Consequently, Mukat Lal’s status as the beneficiary of the suit lands under the will executed by his father, Kanwarlal, was affirmed.
• In 1979, Kailash Chand filed Revenue Suit No. 37, seeking partition of the suit property before the Revenue Court. He claimed that Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to a rightful share in the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This section of the Act could potentially convert a woman’s limited interest in property into full ownership if she was in possession of the property. However, it is crucial to note that Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in possession of the property, and her claim had already been settled against her in the 1959 civil suit judgment.
• The current appeal stems from the judgment dated November 2, 2017, delivered by the learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979. The High Court’s decision reiterated the earlier conclusions regarding Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s limited rights to the property. The issue of title and possession over the suit property had already been conclusively determined against her in the 1959 judgment. The said judgment recognized her right only to maintenance from the property and denied her claims to possession and title. Smt. Nandkanwarbai did not appeal against this judgment, thus rendering it final and binding.
• Throughout this legal journey, the core dispute has remained the status of the suit property as joint Hindu family property and the validity of the will executed by Kanwarlal. The civil courts consistently ruled against Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s claims of ownership and possession, limit her rights strictly to maintenance. Despite multiple appeals and legal maneuvers, the fundamental decision of 1959 dismissing her claims of title and possession has remained unchallenged and final. This established that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no legal standing to claim ownership or partition of the property.
• Kailash Chand’s subsequent legal attempts to secure a share of the property under the Hindu Succession Act hinged on reinterpreting Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s rights posthumously. However, these efforts were consistently thwarted by the binding nature of the 1959 judgment, which firmly negated any claims of ownership or possession by Smt. Nandkanwarbai. The High Court’s 2017 judgment in the Revenue Suit reiterated these findings, leaving Mukat Lal’s inheritance under his father’s will intact and undisputed.

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether the Hindu widow have a right to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned joint Hindu Undivided Family property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the absence of possession over the suit property?
• Whether the subsequent partition suit was maintainable?
• Whether Smt. Nandkanwarbai could confer proprietary rights to her adopted son, Kailash Chand under the said section?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

• Shri Puneet Jain, representing the appellant, Mukat Lal, advanced several substantive arguments to challenge the legal basis of the Division Bench’s decision, which upheld the learned Single Judge’s ruling and restored the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court.
• Central to his argument is the contention that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no rightful claim, whether limited or otherwise, to the suit land that could lead to the absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Jain argued that the Division Bench falsely equated “Charge over property towards Maintenance” with actual possession of the property, a misinterpretation that fundamentally undermines the judicial findings.
• Jain emphasized that under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the property must be “possessed by the Hindu Woman” for the provision to apply. In this case, however, the suit for possession and title filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai was dismissed because she never had either legal or actual possession of the suit property. This dismissal is critical because it directly contradicts the Division Bench’s premise that possession existed in any form.
• By dismissing her suit of title and possession, the civil court effectively established a precedent that should bar any subsequent claims on the same grounds, thereby invoking the principle of res judicata. Thus, Jain argued that this principle prohibits Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s adopted son, Kailash Chand, obtained relief in the partition suit filed later in the Revenue Court.
• Furthermore, Jain referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Vishal (dead) by LRs. and Others v. Jagannath and Another [(2004) 9 SCC 302]. This precedent establishes that without possession of agricultural lands, either by inheritance or in lieu of maintenance, Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be invoked to confer proprietary rights. Since Smt. Nandkanwarbai was never in possession of the suit property, the provision cannot apply to her or extend any rights to her adopted son.
• Additionally, Jain challenged the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision in Vasant and Anr. v. Dattu & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 160]. He argued that this precedent was misapplied because it deals specifically with properties held by a joint Hindu family with several surviving coparceners, which differs significantly from the current case involving a sole surviving coparcener. The distinct contexts of the two cases mean that the legal principles applicable to one do not necessarily transfer to the other. The misapplication of this precedent, according to Jain, led to a flawed legal reasoning process that contributed to an erroneous judgment

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, representing the respondent, Kailash Chand, strongly refuted the appellant’s claims, asserting that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. [2022 SCC Online SC 643] has addressed the scope of a female Hindu’s rights to undivided joint Hindu family property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Bhattacharya emphasized that this precedent establishes that possession, including a charge for maintenance, can convert a limited interest into absolute ownership. Thus, Bhattacharya urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the lower courts’ judgments, affirming the Division Bench’s correct application of established legal principles.

ANALYSIS

• At the outset, the Court noted that regarding Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s possession over the suit property, she never contested the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1959 where the title and possession of the suit property were denied by the civil court. It proves that neither Smt. Nandkanwarbai nor Kailash Chnad ever had the possession of the suit property.
• As the case, Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. [2022 SCC Online SC 643], cited by Shri Bhattacharya, the counsel for Respondent, the widow resided in the suit property not only during the time when the coparcener was alive but also after his death and also collected rent from the tenants. Thus, she acquired the property in lieu of her rights to maintenance and was declared as the full owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The court also concluded after examining the case of M. Sivadasan (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. A. Soudamini (Dead) through Lrs. and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 1078], that for establishing full ownership on the Hindu Undivided Joint Family, the Hindu woman must have acquired the property by inheritance or at partition or in lieu of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription. But in the present case, it is clear that Smt. Nandkanwarbai or Kailash Chand, her adopted son, were never in possession of the suit property.
• The court declared the judgment of Division Bench and Single Judge invalid and thus, were set aside. Also, the Revenue Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. And passed a decree.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had to decide whether Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act can be applied even in the absence of possession by Smt. Nandkanwarbai over the suit property and also whether Smt. Nandkanwarbai could confer proprietary rights to her adopted son, Kailash Chand under the said section. The court strictly interpreted the words of the section and decided that the Hindu woman must have the possession of the property. Also Smt. Nandkanwarbai did not challenge the dismissal of possession and title by the civil court proving that neither the widow nor the adopted son ever had the possession of the suit property. So, the court held that the deceased widow nor the adopted son have rights over the property and thus, the suit for partition cannot be entertained. It also set aside the judgments given by the Division Bench dated 2nd November 2017 and the judgment given by the Single Judge dated 21st July 2006.