Naraini Devi versus Smt. Ramo Devi and Ors.

Hindu SuccessionAct-Section_14(1)&(2)-Scopeof-Liniitedinterestin_ an estate given underanaward to a lvidow not having a pre-existing right under the Hindu Law prior to thecomn1ence111entofthe Hindu Succession Act, comes toanend011her death. 'N'awidow of 'H',-..vho,under the Hindu law then applicable andinthe· presence of her three sons, did not getany_share or iqterestinthe house left byherlate husband and therefore got a life interest by virtue of a registered ~iwardfiled a suit under Order21Rule63('.P.C. to establish her claim to the property that had been attached in executionofthe decree against hersecon<l .sonobtainedbyher eldest daughter-in-law. 'N's suit was decreedbythe trial Court.Thefirst appellate court reversed that decree. The second appeal and the review in the High Court failed.	c
Onappealbyspecial leave, rejectingthecontention that "theappellant..<> limited interest\asenlarged intothatof<tfullownerbythe operationofsnb- scc. (l)ofSection14ofthe Hindu Succession Act, the Court .HELD : ( 1) A readingofthe award a..-;a whole, leaves little doubt,that the only interestinthe house created inf~\vourofthe widow was that she \vould beentitled toitsrent, and no more for her life time.[56F] (2)Inthe present case, the appellant did not get any shareorinterest in thehou~eleft by her husbaJld under the Hindu Law as then applicable. She hadnopre-c>..isting rightorinterestinthe property. [57B] (3)The award created a restricted estate for her in the house. andf57Bl _(_4)The case fell Squarely within the ambit of sub-section (2)ofsec- tion14ofthe Hindu Succession Act and her interest cametoan end onher death. [57CJ _Badri Prasad_v.Sn1t.Kanan Devi[1970] 2 S.C.R. 95, not applicable. CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 824of1968. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 23-8-1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. (Review) appli- cation No. 32 of 1966 (in S.A.4357/65). _l.P.Goyal_for the Appellant. _V.S.Desai and V.N.Ganpule_for Respondent No.1. TheJudgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA,J. The following pedigree table illustrates the relation- ship of the parties : HiraLal=Smt.Naraini Devi (plaintiff). (died in1925).	D E F G
Kapoo'.' Ch«nd (diod in1954) =Smt. RamoDevi (Respondent I l Decree-holder 5-L390SCl176 Neini Chand (Judgment-debtor) Chandra Bhan (diedin1930) (extinct).	H

Hindu SuccessionAct-Section_14(1)&(2)-Scopeof-Liniitedinterestin_
an estate given underanaward to a lvidow not having a pre-existing right under
the Hindu Law prior to thecomn1ence111entofthe Hindu Succession Act, comes
toanend011her death.
'N'awidow of 'H',-..vho,under the Hindu law then applicable andinthe·
presence of her three sons, did not getany_share or iqterestinthe house left
byherlate husband and therefore got a life interest by virtue of a registered
~iwardfiled a suit under Order21Rule63('.P.C. to establish her claim to the
property that had been attached in executionofthe decree against hersecon<l
.sonobtainedbyher eldest daughter-in-law.
'N's suit was decreedbythe trial
Court.Thefirst appellate court reversed that decree.
The second appeal and
the review in the High Court failed.

c

Onappealbyspecial leave, rejectingthecontention that "theappellant..<>
limited interest\asenlarged intothatof<tfullownerbythe operationofsnb-
scc. (l)ofSection14ofthe Hindu Succession Act, the Court
.HELD : ( 1) A readingofthe award a..-;a whole, leaves little doubt,that
the only interestinthe house created inf~\vourofthe widow was that she \vould
beentitled toitsrent, and no more for her life time.[56F]
(2)Inthe present case, the appellant did not get any shareorinterest in
thehou~eleft by her husbaJld under the Hindu Law as then applicable. She
hadnopre-c>..isting rightorinterestinthe property. [57B]
(3)The award created a restricted estate for her in the house. andf57Bl
_(_4)The case fell Squarely within the
ambit of sub-section
(2)ofsec-
tion14ofthe Hindu Succession Act and her interest cametoan end onher
death. [57CJ
_Badri Prasad_v.Sn1t.Kanan Devi[1970] 2 S.C.R. 95, not applicable.
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 824of1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
23-8-1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. (Review) appli-
cation No. 32 of 1966 (in S.A.4357/65).
_l.P.Goyal_for the Appellant.
_V.S.Desai and V.N.Ganpule_for Respondent No.1.
TheJudgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA,J.
The following pedigree table illustrates the relation-
ship of the parties :
HiraLal=Smt.Naraini Devi (plaintiff).
(died in1925).

D
E
F
G

Kapoo'.' Ch«nd
(diod in1954)
=Smt. RamoDevi
(Respondent I l
Decree-holder
5-L390SCl176
Neini Chand
(Judgment-debtor)
Chandra Bhan
(diedin1930)
(extinct).

H

¶14

(197 6] 3 S.C.R.

¶15

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶16

56

¶17

A

¶18

A Smt. Ramo Devi, widow of Kapur Chand (shown in the above pedigree table) obtained a money decree against her husband's brother Nemi Chand. In execution of her decree she got attached one half-share in the double storeyed House No. 4416, situated at Agra representing it to be of the judgment-debtor. Smt. Naraini Devi, widow of Hira Lal, filed an objection petition under 0.21, r. 58, Code of Civil Procedure against that attachment claiming the house to be her B property. That objection was dismissed by the executing court on the 16th July, 1962. Thereafter, she filed.a suit under 0.21, r. 63, Code of Civil Procedure to establish her cfaim. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. Naraini Devi's second appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court. She filed a review petition which was rejected by the High Court on August 23, 1967.

¶19

c

¶20

•

¶21

Hence, this appeal by special leave.

¶22

It is common ground between the parties that under a· registered award dated January 4, 1946, the plaintiff Smt. Naraini Devi was given a life interest in the house in dispute. The appellant's contention is that her limited interest in the house was enlarged into that of a full D owner by the operation of sub-s. (I) of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. As against this, the respondents maintain that her case falls under sub-s. (2) of s. 14. The question thus turns on a construction of the award Ex. 2.

¶23

We have examined an English rendering of this document filed by the appellant, the correctness of which is not disputed by the respondent. This award states in clear, unmistakable terms that she, Naraini E Devi would be entitled to the rent of this house in' lieu of maintenance for her life-time, and after her death, her sons, Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand will be owners of half share each of this house. This award further partitions this house between Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand and allots specific portions thereof to the two brothers. A part of this house was in the occupation of a tenant at Rs. 32/- per month. Naraini Devi was given a right to get that rent. A part of it was in F the personal occupation of Kapoor Chand. The award protects and assures his right of remaining in possession of the same. A reading of this document as a whole, leaves little doubt that the only interest in this house created in favour of the widow was that she would be entitled to its rent-and no more-for her life-time. Thus the award confers on her only a restricted estate in the house within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 which says:

¶24

G

¶25

"Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property."

¶26

H

¶27

Mr. Goval however, submits that her case would fall within this Court's ruling in Badri Pershad v. Smt. Kanan Devi(!) according to

¶28

'

¶29

r

¶30

(ll [1970] 2 S.C.R. 95.

¶31

NARAIN! DEVI v. RAMO DEVI (Sarkaria, !.) 5 7

¶32

which, if the widow has a pre-existing right in the property, then the case will fall under sub-s. (I), and sub-section (2) which is in the nature of a proviso to sub-s. (!) of s. 14 will not be attracted. The rule in Badri Parshad's case (supra) is not applicable here. In that case the widow had acquired a share in the property by virtue of the

¶33

• Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, on the death of her husband, which took place after the coming into operation of that Act. In the present case, Smt. Naraini Devi's husband died in 1925. In the presence of her sons, the widow did not get any share or interest

¶34

f in the house left by her husban~ nnderthe Hindu Law as then applicable. In short, she had no pre-existing right or interest in the house in q ueslion. It was the award dated January 4, 1946, that created a restricted estate for her in the house in question. Her case thus falls squarely within the ambit of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Her interest therefore, came to an end on her death which took place during the pendency of these proceedings. For reasons aforesaid the appeal fails and is dismissed with no

¶35