Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The fourth condition on which judicial opinion is almost uniform (without much of a divergence) is that Section 14(2) would apply only to the "modes" of acquisition specified therein or other modes of acquisition ejusdem generis and will not apply to inheritance, partition and maintenance arrangement.

23. The rationale underlying these decisions is that the Legislature took note of the fact that Hindu females were in possession of property acquired by inheritance or partition or in lieu of maintenance, besides the other modes indicated in the Explanation, and that the intention of the Legislature was to exclude and make Sub-section (2) inapplicable to properties acquired under inheritance, partition or in lieu of maintenance, as otherwise, the object of the legislation would be defeated. What is carved out and covered by the proviso or the exception indicated in Section 14(2) is only the modes expressly mentioned in Sub-section (2) and arrangement ejusdem generis. Some of the decisions of this Court and other Courts, while considering the question whether a particular maintenance arrangement would be governed by Section 14(1), or (2), have not adverted to this restrictive operation of Sub-section (2), i.e. the object of the Legislature in delibertely excluding the "modes" of inheritance, partition and maintenance out of the purview of Sub-section (2).

24. I shall first dispose of the point as to whether Section 14(2) would apply to property acquired in lieu of maintenance.

25. The starting point of discussion is, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sasadhar Chandra Das v. Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi . In that case a Hindu female was in possession in pursuance of a decree passed in a suit for partition, and it was held that under Sub-section (1) she became the absolute owner. In holding that Sub-section (2) would not apply, it was held (a) that it was not a case of a fresh acquisition, but a case of mere recognition of undoubted pre-existing; rights; (b) Section 14(2) would not apply to properties acquired on partition and: that the 'other instrument' in Sub-section (2) should be read ejusdem generis with the other modes specified in the earlier portion of Sub-section (2). The following observations of Mallick, J. at pages 439 and 440 may be extracted as the same have been referred to and followed with, approval in all the subsequent decisions, of various High Courts:

26. The next case to be referred to is the case reported in Rangaswami Naicker v. Chinnammal , a Bench decision of Rama-chandra Iyer, G.J. and myself. In that case the last full owner died in 1951 leaving behind his widow, three daughters and a grandson (a son's son). By reason of the Act of 1937 the widow became entitled to a half share and as disputes arose, she filed a suit in 1952 for an injunction restraining the grandson from interfering with her possession. That suit was compromised and the terms of the written compromise provided that the widow will be entitled to a half share in the properties of the husband, with an important condition (clause No. 9) that on the death of the widow the grandson will be entitled to the widow's half share of the properties. Long afterwards the Act of 1956 came into force and in 1957 the widow gave her share in the properties to her daughters. The question was whether the widow became an absolute owner under Section 14(1) or it was a restricted estate under Section 14(2). The Bench held that the modes of acquisition specified in the Explanation to Section 14(1) are comprehensive and unlimited, while the modes of acquisition enumerated in Sub-section (2) are specified and delimited. First, dealing with Sub-section (2) the Bench observed that it is an exception to Section 14(1) and should therefore be strictly construed. It further held that Section 14(2) would apply only to the modes of acquisition mentioned or ejusdem generis with the categories referred to in Section 14(2) and that the words "other instrument" must be held to signify not anything widely differing in character but something allied to documents set out earlier, i.e., the words "other instrument" should be read ejusdem generis with the categories of documents referred to earlier, and that in this view an acquisition under an Act of Parliament, i.e., the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act of 1937, would not come under Section 14(2).

In Sub-section (2) the illustration of acquisition given is acquisition by way of 'gift' or 'devise.' It is to be noticed that while in the Explanation to Sub-section (1) specific reference is made to properties allotted to the female Hindu on partition or in lieu of maintenance so that she may acquire absolute title therein there is no such specific reference in Sub-section (2). Partition of joint family property must be evidenced either by a deed of partition or by a decree of a Court in the partition suit as in the present case. The property allotted to a female Hindu on such partition must necessarily be a restricted estate as prescribed by Hindu Law. It follows that if the Legislature intended that the property allotted to a female Hindu on partition or in lieu of maintenance be treated on the same footing as 'gift' or 'devise' in Sub-section (2) then the whole of the Sub-section (1) would be detroyed in respect of properties which were partitioned prior to the Act either privately by a deed or by Court in a partition suit. The words 'any other instrument' in Sub-section (2) must be construed ejusdem generis, that is, any other instrument of the same nature, whereby the acquisition is made in respect of property in which the person had no interest previously. The Calcutta High Court followed and referred to these basic principles in deciding the case of Sasadhar Chandra Dev v. Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi .