Gummalapura Taggina ... vs Setra Veeravva And Others on 19 December, 1958
Bhagwati, J. pointed out to the social objectives sought to be achieved by the provision and abserved that the Court had in a series of decisions given "a most expansive interpretation to the language of sub-section (1) of S. 14 with a view to advancing the social purpose of the legislation" and called attention to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Gumalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veerawa, , and Mangal Singh v. Battno, Air 1967 S. C. 1786(9). It was, thus held that sub-section (1) was large in its amplitude and "covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, 'including acquisition in lieu of maintenance". It was further held that sub-section (2) of the Section was more in the nature of a proviso or exception to sub-section (1) and this sub-section excepts certain kinds of acquisition of property by a Hindu female from the operation of sub-section ( 1 ) and being in the nature of an exception to the provision which was calculated to achieve a social purpose of bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu society, "ITmust be considered strictly so as to impinge as little as possible on the broad sweep of ameliorative provision contained in sub-section ( 1 ). It cannot be interpreted in a manner which would rob subsection (1) of its efficacy and deprive a Hindu female of the protection sought to be given to her by sub-section (1)".