NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

FAMILY LAW II

SECTION 14:-PROPERTY OF A HINDU FEMALE

TO BE HER ABSOLUTE PROPERTY

SUBMITTED TO:- SUBMITTED BY:-

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Kriti Bhatnagar
KAVITA SINGH 2014BALLB44
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. BEFORE 1956- (a) STREEDHAN (b) WOMENS ESTATE
3. PRE ACT WOMENS ESTATE
(a)OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY MUST VEST IN HER
(b) SHE MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF THE ESTATE
WHEN THE ACT CAME IN FORCE
4. CASE LAWS
5. POST ACT WOMENS ACT
6. CASE LAWS
7. CONCLUSION
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION

Through this project we have endeavored to study the significance of changes brought about by
the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 especially with regard to Section 14 of the Act.

Prior to the passing of the Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1937, the property comprised of
stridhan and non-stridhan. In a nutshell, a woman enjoyed larger powers of disposal over her
stridhan, but had a limited interest in non-stridhan.

The responsibility of maintaining the near female relations was on the males and on the death of
men , they became the responsibility of either the whole body of male members of the family , or
those who took the interest of the diseased husband or father by survivorship. Rather than
permitting her to claim the share of the husband or father, the ownership vested with the males,
with the womans right reduced to maintenance, which she could enforce in a court of law.

To convert this liability of maintenance from the responsibility of others to her own concern, the
Hindu Woman Right to Property Act, 1937 was passed under which, on the death of the
husband, his share in the presence of his widow (widow of a predeceased son and widow of a
predeceased son of a predeceased son) did not go by survivorship to the surviving coparceners
but went to her so that she could maintain herself with this share. As the emphasis was on
securing her maintenance, her limited ownership terminated on her death, or even remarriage,
going back to the heirs of her husband or even remarriage. Hence this narrow purpose of
replacing the tag of burden of male relations to sustenance in her own right, could not alter the
rules of premium on her chastity and her rights coming to an end on her remarriage etc.

Therefore the logical step was to enlarge the limited estate to an absolute estate and to remove
the impediments of moral conduct, chastity of remarriage, which was accomplished by the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. Significant changes have been brought about with the passing of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, especially with respect to womens property.
 BEFORE 1956

1. STREEDHAN:-
Stridhan is a compound word made of two smaller parts, stri and dhan; stri meaning woman and
dhan meaning property. Hence literally stridhan means womans property. But its actual
meaning is more complex and varied from school to school.. The precise meaning of stridhan
differs in amongst various schools, like the Mitakshara , the Dayabhaga and the Bombay School.
Under classical Hindu law stridhan has been divided into various categories depending upon its
particular characteristics such as
Source from which the property was acquired.
Marital status of woman, ie whether she was a maiden, married or a widow.
The school to which she belonged.

But in Hindu Law,it has along,been given a technical meaning.In general,the following types of
properties come within the purview of Stridhan:
1. Gifts and Legacies(bequests) from Relations
2. Gifts and Legacies(bequests) from Strangers
3. Property acquired by Self exertion and Mechanical Arts
4. Property purchased with Stridhan
5. Property acquried by Compromise
6. Property obtain by Adverse possession
and
7. Property obtained in Lieu of Maintenance.

Characteristic Features of Stridhan:

Stridhan has all the characteristic features of the absolute ownership.It means that she has a
right to use,Gift,Mortgage,Lease,Exchange or if she chooses,she can destroy.
On her death,all types of Stridhan passed to her Heirs(and not to the heirs of last male owner).
Succession to Stridhan:

The devolution of Stridhan in ancient times,different schools,adopted different rules.According

to Vignaneswara,the Woman's property goes to her daughter.In case of a Maidan,her property
goes to Male i.e. her Uterine Brother.In the absence of the Uterine Brother,it goes to her
Mother. In the absence of the Mother,it goes to her Father.
The Hindu Succession Act,1956 abrogated the Old Laws.It lays down the provisions relating to
devolution of Woman's Property.

2. WOMENS ESTATE:-

Widows estate was one of the two forms of recognised property that a woman could hold as her
own under the classical law. Hence as such it played a pivotal role in the law of succession. It is
known by names, womens estate and widows estate. It refers to that property that a Hindu
female took as share in partition or the property to which she succeeded and that she took as
limited estate.

The following two categories of property come within the meaning of Woman's Estate:

1. Property obtain by inheritance

2. Share obtained on Partition.

The female takes it as elimited owner and hence it is also known as Limited estate.

The Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act,1937 conferred on Hindu Woman,life Estate or
Limited Estate on her husband's property.She was the absolute owner of such property subject
to the following two limitations:
a) Power of Management
b) Power of Alienation.
a) Power of Management:

The Hindu Woman's Power of Management is absolute.Her position in this respect is some
what superior to that of the Karta of Joint Family.The Karta is answerable to everyone.But,She
is the sole owner and is not answerable and accountable to anyone.She continues to be the
owner until the forfeiture of estate by her Remarriage,Adoption,Death or Surrender.

b) Power of Alienation:

She can alienate the property for the following purpose.

i) Legal Necessity
ii) For benefit of the Estate
iii) To discharge Indispensable Religious Duties.

With respect to such property the Hindu female had the power to alienate the property only for
certain well defined purposes such as legal necessity, benefit of estate or spiritual benefit of her
husband. A necessary consequence of alienation for legal necessity was that the property vested
in the alienee and the reversioners were precluded from challenging the alienation. A remarkable
feature of womens estate was that an improper alienation was not void but merely voidable that
could be avoided by the reversioners on her death. But during her lifetime the transfer was valid
in the sense that widow was bound it. This statement is paradoxical in the sense that although the
transfer is invalid, the widow being the grantor herself cannot derogate from the grant and the
transfer could not be challenged so long a person does not come into existence who can claim a
present right to possession of the property.
 PRE ACT WOMENS ESTATE

S14 has been given retrospective effect. Two conditions are necessary for this: -

(a) Ownership of property must vest in her :-

It is well settled if a Hindu female has no title to the property she will not become its absolute
owner, even though she is in its possession. The Supreme Court said: the word possessed in
section 14 is used in broad sense and in the context means the state of owning or having in ones
hand or power.1 The property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, is
clearly the property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the
commencement of the Act. Section 14 does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu
where she did not, in fact, possess any. Thus, section 14 cannot be interpreted so as to validate
the illegal possession of a female Hindu, nor does it confer any title on a mere trespasser.2

In the context of Section 14, woman does not mean any woman, but that woman who is the
owner of womans estate. If the holder of womans estate had alienated the estate to a woman,
that woman is not the woman whose estate is enlarged to full estate.3

(b) She must be in possession of the estate when the Act came in force:-

The second condition for the applicability of section 14(1) is that when the Act came into force,
the Hindu female must be in possession of the property. In a series of cases the High Courts and
the Supreme Court have held that the expressions, property and possession are to be given
widest possible interpretation. In the absence of a retrospective definition, in the relevant statute,
it is not proper to restrict its scope and comprehensiveness.

1
Gummalappura v. Setra, AIR 1959 SC 577
2
Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR 1966 SC 1879
3
Kalawati v. Suraj, AIR 1991 SC 1581
She must be owner of the property i.e. she must have acquired title to it. The property must be in
her possession. The term possession has very wide connotation, and includes actual as well as
constructive possession eg where she is entitled to possession of property, such as when the
property is in possession of a trespasser, property is in possession of mortgagee, lessee, etc.

The term possession is co-extensive with ownership. Thus wherever woman has ownership of
property vested in her she will be deemed to be in possession, and if ownership doesnt vest in
her, even if she is in actual possession she will not deemed to be in possession.

Jagannathan vs. Kunjitha Padam Pillai

In a situation where a Hindu widow regains possession of a property subsequent to the

commencement of H.S.A. upon the retransfer of same property by transferee in whose favour she
had transferred it prior to the Act, then according to A.P. and Orissa High Courts, she would only
be a limited owner of such property, while according to Madras and Bombay view, she would be
a full owner: In the pre sent case, the widow was not in possession on the date of the
commencement of the act, but possession was restored later.

The court observed the H.S.A applies even in properties possessed by a Hindu female which are
acquired after the commencement of Act, it is futile to contend that the female shall be in
possession of property before the coming into operation of the Act. IF the property itself is
acquired after the commencement of Act, there could be no question of property being either in
physical or constructive possession of female before the coming into operation of the Act.
All that is required to be shown by her is that she had acquired the property and that she was
possessed of property at the time when her title was called into question. When she bought the
property from alienee to whom she sold property prior to the Act, she acquired property within
the meaning of explanation To S.14(1).
When the transaction was reversed and what belonged to her was retransmitted to her, what she
acquired was a right that she once possessed which immediately matures into full ownership in
view of S 14(1). By the reversal of transaction no right of revisioners affected, for he had merely
a spes succesionis or a chance of succession, which may or may not accrue to him.

It was contented that the donee or transferee who re transfers property to widow cant transfer a
title higher than the title they themselves had in property. As they had only a limited interest, so
they can transmit only a limited interest. The court observed that there is a difference between re
transfer to a stranger, and the original owner i.e. widow. It is only in the former case, that they
could transfer limited interest. In the latter case, upon retransfer, the original transaction is
obliterated, and the position reversed and the original rights of widow restored. By reversal of
the original transaction, her rights would have to be ascertained as if she became possessed of the
property for the first time, after the commencement of the act.
Therefore, if reconveyance takes place before or after 1956, the female would certainly be
deemed to be in possession of property, with the result S14 will apply.
 POST ACT WOMENS ACT

Any property acquired by a Hindu female after the Act came into force, will be her absolute
property, unless given to her with limitations as mentioned in Sec. 14 (2). S14 (2) enacts a well-
established principle of law i.e. if grant is given subject to some restrictions, the grantee will take
the grant subject to these restrictions.

V. Tulsamma vs. Shesha Reddy

In this case, the properties in suit filed by widow Tulsamma for maintenance were allotted to her,
under a compromise certified in 1945, by the court in which the appellant had taken only a life-
interest in the properties and there was clear restriction prohibiting her from alienating her
properties. Despite these restrictions, she continued to be in possession of properties till 1956 and
she made alienations in 1960-61 on the plea that she had acquired an absolute interest in
properties. Thus the question is what happens when a female Hindu is given some properties as a
settlement recorded in a decree, which prescribes as one of the conditions that the properties will
revert her revisioners

Observation- the right of widow to be maintained is of course not just in rem., it doesnt give her
any interest in JFP, but it is certainly jus ad rem, i.e. a right against JFP. Therefore, when specific
property allotted to the widow in lieu of her claim for maintenance, the allotment would be in
satisfaction of her jus ad rem- the right to be maintained out of JFP. It would not be a grant for
the first time, without any preexisting right in widow. The instrument giving the property is
merely a document effectuating a pre-existing right.

Thus J. Fazal Ali concluded, provisions of S. 14 must be liberally construed so as to advance the
object of the Act, which is to enlarge the limited interest of widow. S. 14(2) doesnt refer to any
transfer which merely recognizes a pre-existing right (Badri Prashad V. Smt. Kanso Devi AIR
1970 Sc 1963). S.s. (2) to S. 14 is merely a proviso to Ss. (1) of S. 14 and has to be interpreted as
a proviso and not in manner so as to destroy the effect of main provision. The explanation to S.s.
(1) has expanded the notion of ownership and includes all types of property. The use of express
terms like property acquired by a female at partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance in explanation to S.s. (1) clearly makes S.s. (2) inapplicable to these categories,
which have been expressly excluded from operation of S. s. (2). The Act of 1956 has made
revolutionary changes in The Hindu society and every attempt should be made to carry out the
spirit of the Act, i.e. to emancipate women in India.

The court thus held that the widow is the absolute owner and the restrictions mentioned in the
decree to be ignored.

Any property that a Hindu female acquires after the coming into force of the act will be
her absolute property unless given to her with limitations. Thus property obtained by her on
succession or partition is her absolute property. Sub section 2 of section 14 lays down that if the
gift, will or any instrument decree or order of the Civil Court or an award grants only a restricted
estate to a female Hindu, she would take the property accordingly. In the absence of such an
intention, the womans grant will be her absolute property. The object of Section 14 is to remove
the disability of Hindu woman and not to interfere with contracts etc. Sub sec 2 is based on the
principles of sanctity of contracts and grants. The case of Chanan Singh v. Balwant Kaur4 is a
simple case illustrating the application of section 14(2) of the Act. Under his will a testator had
given clearly a limited estate to his daughter. It is a well established principle that unless the
property held by a Hindu female when the Act came into force is related to some of her
antecedent right or interest, the limited title or estate would not become her absolute estate.

4
AIR 1984 P & H 203
The Supreme Court had considered the inter relationship between sub section 1 and sub section 2
in the case of Badri Parsad v. Kanso Devi5 And had observed that the latter was in the nature of
a proviso to the principle rule laid down in the former. The court opined that there might arise
the following two situations:

1. Right in some property might have accrued to a Hindu female as a limited estate and the
instrument, decree, order or award might confirm it or declare it.
2. Right in some property as limited estate might accrue to her for the first time under the
instrument, decree, order or award.

It is only in relation to the latter that Sub Section 2 applies while in respect of the former, sub
section 1 applies. Thus it will depend as to how the document is awarded that is whether it is
merely declaratory or constitutive of the rights. Thus a gift deed, a will, a partition deed and
family arrangement and an order or decree of the court was construed to confer only a limited
estate. In the case of Challmman v. Duni6, the Madras High Court held that sub section 2 applied
only to written instruments conveying title and would not apply to oral arrangements.

5
AIR 1970 SC 1963
6
(1971) 1 MLJ 439
 CONCLUSION

Therefore there remains no doubt that the maximum impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is
visible in the area of a Hindu womans right to hold property and dispose it off as an absolute
owner. In the 21st century it may sound surprising that the conferment of an absolute ownership
in favor of a Hindu woman is less than fifty years old. It is indeed a firm step on the part of the
legislature to correct the imbalance in the areas of property rights between men and women,
especially in light of the stiff opposition presented by the conservatives who linked the granting
of full rights of inheritance to women as endangering the Hindu Religion and the son centered
economy as the basic symbol of Hinduism.

In the opinion of the apex court Section 14 was introduced as a step in the direction of a practical
recognition of the quality of sexes and meant to elevate women from a sub serviant position in
the economic field, to a higher pedestal, where they could exercise full powers of enjoyment and
dispose of property held by them, as owners, untrammeled by artificial limitations placed on
their rights of ownership by the society in which the will of the dominant may prevail to bring
about a subjugation of the opposite sex.

Thus it cannot be doubted that both section 14 is a piece of a social legislation in itself, and has
been vastly successful in enlarging womens rights. With the concept of womens estate coming
to an end, and the Hindu female getting an absolute right over property, she has almost attained
the same status as that of a Hindu Male. The changes brought about in Section 6 by the
Amendment brought about in 2005 (although it has not been discussed in the instant project),
where daughters have also been made as much a coparcener as their brothers, is a further step
towards equality in womens right as far as property rights are concerned and will go a long way
in eliminating any discrimination on the ground of sex.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Family Law - Paras Diwan

2. Hindu Law- Mulla

3. From Reading Material

4. www.google.com

5. www.legalserviceindia.com

6.www.manupatra.com