Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th May, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 158 of 1967.

Naunit Lal- and Lalit Kohli, for the appellant O.P. Verma, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-The property in dispute in this appeal belonged to Wadhawa Singh, the father of the respondent. After his death in the year 1933 his widow, who succeeded to the estate, made a gift of the property in favour of her daughter, the respondent, in.April, 1933. The appellants filed a suit as reversioners to the estate of Wadhawa Singh questioning the gift. The suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed on appeal. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act on 17-6-1956 the widow again made a gift of the same lands to the respondent. She died in 1963. The appellants then filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for possession of the lands alleging that the second gift was void. The Trial Court decreed their suit but on appeal the respondent succeeded in the first Appellate Court as well as the High Court on-second appeal. There is no doubt that Wadhawa Singh's widow had no right to male a gift of the property which she inherited from her husband in 1933 and the decree obtained by the appellants, who were reversioners to her husband's estate would bind the respondent who was also a party, to that suit. The question then is-whether the-coming into force, of the Hindu succession Act and the subsequent gift made by the widow in favour of the respondent make any difference. Had not the widow made the gift to the respondent in 1933, she would have become an absolute owner of the property as a result of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the gift made by her subsequently in favour of the respondent could not have been questioned. But having made the gift in 1933 she was not in possession of the property inherited by her from her husband and, therefore, did not become a full owner, with the result that the subsequent gift made by her in favour of the respondent was of no effect. This point that unless the limited owner is in possession of the property section 14 does not apply has now been settled by decisions of this Court beyond dispute.