Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;)Rajinder And Ors vs Subh Pal Etc on 1 September, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.09.2014
Rajinder and others ....Appellants
Versus
Sukh Pal and others ....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
-.-
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
For the appellants
Mr. Aman Priya Jain, Advocate
For the respondents
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J The present regular second appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1986, passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Gurgaon, accepting the appeal of respondent No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.1985, passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.
The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for possession by way of partition of the property, fully described in para 2 of the plaint, on the premise that Albad son of Agdi was a common ancestor of the parties. Smt. Chandri was the daughter of Rugh Nath son of Albad and being daughter was legal heir of Smt. Runia widow of Rugh Nath. After death MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 2 of Smt. Runia in 1958, Chandri, her daughter and after death of Chandri in 1975, the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Chandri are joint owners of half share in the suit property as both the parties are the descendants of said Albad and, as such, the parties are joint owners in possession of the suit property as it has not been partitioned till date. It was further averred that Smt. Runia got half share in the suit property being the son's widow of said Albad and on her death in 1958, Smt. Chandri, her daughter inherited the suit property. It was accordingly prayed that suit for possession by partition of half share in the suit property be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1 was filed separately controverting the allegations contained in the plaint and entitlement of the plaintiffs to have any share in the suit property. It was denied that Albad had a son namely Rugh Nath, Rugh Nath ever had a widow by the name of Smt. Runia or Smt. Runia had a daughter named Smt. Chandri or the plaintiffs are children of said Smt. Chandri. It was also denied that widow of Rugh Nath had ever inherited property of Albad or she died in the year 1958. All other material averments of the plaint were denied with prayer for dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiffs filed replication reiterating their stand taken up in the plaint while denying claim of the defendants.
The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues:-
1. Whether the Albad son of Agdi was owner of the properties described in para No. 2 of the plaint? OPP MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 3
2. Whether Rugh Nath was a son of Albad or whether Smt. Runia was the widow of the said Rugh Nath?OPP
3. Whether Rugh Nath and Smt. Runia have inherited the property in suit from Albad, if issue No. 1 and 2 are proved in the affirmative? OPP
4. Whether Smt. Chandri was daughter of the said Rugh Nath or whether she had inherited the property in suit? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiffs are descendants of Smt. Chandri? OPP
6. whether the plaintiffs are joint owners in power of the property in suit, if so what is their share? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition of the property in suit? OPP
7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD
8. Relief.
Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective claims.
After having heard counsel for the parties and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court decided issues No. 2, 4 and 5, taken up together in favour of the plaintiffs, issues No. 1, 3 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs whereas issue No.7 was decided against the defendants and as a result, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the learned trial Court.
The matter was carried in appeal by one of the contesting defendants namely Sukh Pal and the learned appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court in regard to relationship of Smt. Runia and Smt. Chandri with deceased Rugh Nath and said Rugh Nath being the son of Albad and as a result, affirmed the findings on issues No. 2, 4 and MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 4 5, but declined the claim of the plaintiffs that Smt. Runia inherited the estate of Albad, her father-in-law to the extent of half share and on her death, the said property was inherited by her daughter namely Chandri and succeeded by the plaintiffs on death of Smt. Chandri and as a consequence, the appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of the learned appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants.
There is no dispute between the parties in regard to findings recorded by the trial Court that Rugh Nath was the son of Albad, Smt. Runia was the widow of Rugh Nath and widowed daughter- in-law of Albad, Smt. Chandri was the daughter of Rugh Nath and Smt. Runia and Smt. Chandri left behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and these findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been affirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court.
Counsel for the parties have made their submissions on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether Smt. Runia widow of Rugh Nath was entitled to inherit to the estate of Albad, her father-in-law?
2. If question No. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs, whether Smt. Runia became absolute owner of the property inherited by her as limited estate in the year 1936 even if she is not in actual physical possession of the suit property in the light of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 5
Counsel for the appellants has argued with vehemence that even if Smt. Runia had no right to succeed to the estate of Sh. Albad, her father-in-law prior to commencement of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 (in short, 'the 1937 Act') which came into force with effect from 14.04.1937, she certainly had the right to be maintained out of the property left behind by her father-in-law Shri Albad. It is further argued that as Smt. Runia had a right of maintenance in the entire property left behind by her father-in-law, her right to maintenance has fructified into her absolute ownership of the property in dispute after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, 'the 1956 Act'). In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Romesh Chander and others v. Sohan Lal (deceased through legal heirs) and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 6.
Counsel for the appellants further contends that on death of Shri Albad in the year 1936, mutation in regard to agricultural land left behind by him was sanctioned and part of that property has been mutated in the name of Smt. Runia as reflected in the mutation exhibited on record. According to counsel, the fact that agricultural land left behind by Albad was mutated in the name of Smt. Runia as well, being his widowed daughter-in-law and the defendants/respondents never raised any issue with regard to mutation of agricultural land in favour of Smt. Runia, the defendants/respondents cannot be heard to say that Smt. Runia was not entitled to inherit to the suit property, part of abadi area of the village. In addition, it is submitted that the mere fact that Smt. Runia inherited to agricultural land left behind by Shri Albad would not ipso facto deprive her of her right to maintenance in the property in MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 6 dispute as has been held in Romesh Chander's case (supra) which is statedly a tailor-made judgment for the case in hand.
So far as the plea with regard to possession of the suit property by Smt. Runia, it is argued that as she was co-owner to the extent of half share, she is deemed to be in joint possession of the suit property even if it is held that she was not in actual physical possession of the same. It is further contended that as Smt. Runia was in joint possession of the suit property being one of the co-sharers, she cannot be deprived of her right of ownership in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act. In this context, reference has been made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in R.B.S.S. Munnala and others v. S.S. Rajkumar and others, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1493, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Joginder Dutt (deceased) through his LRs v. Hans Raj (Deceased) through his LRs and others (LPA No. 91 of 1984 along with connected LPA No. 92 of 1984, decided on 10.04.2013).
Counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the appellate Court with the submissions that as Smt. Runia, the widowed daughter-in-law of Shri Albad had no right to inherit to the estate of her father-in-law, who passed away in the year 1936 prior to commencement of 1937 Act, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right in the suit property being successors-in-interests of said Smt. Runia. It is further argued that it is none of the plea of the plaintiffs in the suit that Smt. Runia had a right of maintenance against the suit property much less the suit property was given to her in lieu of her right to maintenance by Shri Albad or his successor(s)-in-interest i.e. Sukh Pal claiming through Bani Singh, 3rd son of Albad when admittedly Shimbhu Singh, MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 7 another son of Albad, died issueless. It is further argued that assuming though not accepting that Smt. Runia had a right of maintenance against the persons who succeeded to the estate of Shri Albad through his son Bani Singh, the said right neither conferred any limited estate in favour of Smt. Runia nor it could mature into absolute ownership in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act. In support of his contention, he has referred to Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hira Lal v. Shrimati Sharbati Devi and another, 1965 Current Law Journal (Pb.) 839. To refute contentions of the appellants in regard to Smt. Runia being in joint possession of the suit property for the purpose of Section 14 of the 1956 Act, it is argued that as Smt. Runia never came into actual physical possession of the suit property at any point of time since the death of Shri Albad, she does not acquire the right of ownership even if she is held to have inherited limited estate on death of Albad, her father-in-law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment in Eramma v. Veerupana and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1879 (1).
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the plea of the plaintiffs set up in para 4 of the plaint, quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
"4.That Smt. Runiya was the widow of Sh Rugh Nath who was son of Albad son of Agdi. On the death of Albad, Smt. Runiya as his son's widow and on her death in 1958, Smt. Chandri as her daughter got ½ share of 5 properties in suit."MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 8
Indisputably, the plaintiffs claimed ownership right in the suit property on the premise that Smt. Runia succeeded to her father-in- law Albad and on death of Smt. Runia, Smt. Chandri, her daughter succeeded to the suit property. There is no plea set up by the plaintiffs that Smt. Runia had a right of maintenance in the suit property when admittedly, there is no such plea that the suit property was given to her in lieu of her right to maintenance. Counsel for the appellants has not disputed that prior to commencement of the 1937 Act with effect from 14.04.1937, a widowed daughter-in-law had no right to inherit to the estate of her deceased father-in-law. It was for the first time in the year 1937 that right of inheritance in favour of certain widows was created by the 1937 Act.
Now the question arises 'whether Smt. Runia had a right of maintenance in the property of Shri Albad, her father-in-law and said right of maintenance bestowed any right of ownership in her favour which could mature into absolute ownership in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act?' This matter was dealt in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in Hira Lal's case (supra) and a relevant extract from said judgment is usefully quoted herein below:-
"Under the Hindu Law a pre-deceased son's widow has no right to any property from the estate of her deceased father-in-law, but paragraph 564 in Mulla's Hindu Law, 12th Edition, says that "on the death, however, of the father-in-law, his son, widow, or other heir inheriting his property, comes under a legal obligation to carry out this moral obligation, and to maintain her out of such property. In other wards, on the death of the MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 9 father-in-law, the moral obligation on him to maintain his daughter-in-law ripens into a legal obligation on his heirs inheriting his estate in accordance with the principle stated in article 544"
and that article says "an heir is legally bound to provide, out of the estate which descends to him maintenance for those persons who the late proprietor was legally or morally bound to maintain. The reason is that the estate is inherited subject to the obligation to provide for such maintenance." A widowed daughter-in-law is, therefore, entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law, but she cannot claim a right in that estate, in other words, she cannot claim to share that estate. No doubt the right to maintenance is a legal right, but it still does not extend to giving her a share in the estate. So it is obvious that Sharbati Devi defendant was only entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law Din Dayal. She could not claim a right to any share of property left by him, including the land in dispute. Undoubtedly she came in possession of the land in 1938 in consequence of a mutation attested in her favour after the death of her father-in-law, and half of the land from the inheritance of her deceased father-in- law was mutated in her name. It is not denied that she took joint possession of that land. But it has been pointed out that Hira Lal plaintiff was at the time a minor and could not and in fact did not enter into any contract with her to give that land to her in lieu of maintenance. No guardian of his did so. No other person, who could bind him, did so. In what circumstances the revenue authorities attested the mutation of the land in her favour is not clear. But if they did so on their own account, it would not MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 10 mean that the land was given to her in lieu of maintenance by or on behalf of Hira Lal plaintiff. She herself could not, whether by force or for inaction of somebody, enter into possession of the land and declare herself to have obtained the land in lieu of maintenance."
However, the judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellants decided by the Single Bench of this Court in Romesh Chander's case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case. In Romesh Chander's case (supra), the right of maintenance in the property left behind by the deceased husband of Smt. Dwarki Devi was claimed by widow of Gopi Nath and not by a widowed daughter-in-law of Shri Hazari Mal, father of Gopi Nath. The position of a widow cannot be equated with that of a widowed daughter-in-law keeping in view the various judgments and Text on Hindu Law, referred to in Romesh Chander's case (supra). This apart, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Hira Lal's case (supra) does not find reference in Romesh Chander's case (supra), may be, for the reason that in Romesh Chander's case (supra), the question posed was with regard to right of a widow to get maintenance from the property left by her deceased husband and not that of a widowed daughter-in-law in the property of her deceased father-in-law. In view of the ratio in Hira Lal's case (supra), I find no merit in the contention of the appellants that Smt. Runia, even if she had right of maintenance in the estate of her deceased father-in-law in the hands of his (Albad's) legal heirs, the said right enlarges to give her share in the estate. As Smt. Runia did not have a share in the estate of deceased Shri Albad, there is no question of said MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 3426 of 1986 (O&M) 11 right maturing into absolute ownership by invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act.
In view of the aforesaid finding that Smt. Runia did not have a share in the estate of Shri Albad, the second question formulated hereinbefore loses its relevance for adjudication of the present lis and would be a question relevant from academic point of view. It appears that there is merit in the contention of the appellants that a co-owner is deemed to be in joint possession of the property and the fact that she being not in actual physical possession of her share in the property at the time of death, may not deprive her to claim full ownership in the light of provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 01.09.2014 mohan MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.09.19 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh