Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Potti Lakshmi Perumallu vs Potti Krishnavenamma on 13 August, 1964
By the Act certain antithetical concepts are sought to be
reconciled. A widow of a coparcener is invested by the Act
with the same interest which her husband had at the time of
his death in the property of the coparcenary. She is
thereby introduced into the coparcenary, and between the
surviving coparceners of her husband and the widow so
introduced, there arises community of interest and unity of
possession. But the widow does not on that account become a
coparcener: though invested with the same interest which her
husband had in the property she does not acquire the right
which her husband could have exercised over the interest of
the other coparceners. Because of statutory substitution of
her interest in the coparcenary property in place of her
husband, the right which the other coparceners had under the
Hindu law of the Mitakshara school of taking that interest
by the rule of survivorship remains suspended so long as
that estate enures. But on the death of a coparcener there
is no dissolution of the Coparcenary so as to carve out a
defined interest in favour of the widow in the coparcenary
property: Lakshmi Perumallu v. Krishnavenamma.(1) The
interest acquired by her under s. 3(2) is subject to the
restrictions on alienation which are inherent in her estate.
She has still power to make her interest definite by making
a demand for partition, as a male owner may. If the widow
after being introduced into family to which her husband
belonged does not seek partition, on the termination of her
estate her interest will merge into the coparcenary
property. But if she claims partition, she is severed from
the other members and her interest becomes a defined
interest in the coparcenary property, and the right of the
other coparceners to take that interest by survivorship will
stand extinguished. If she dies after partition or her
estate is otherwise determined, the interest in coparcenary
property which has vested in her will devolve upon the heirs
of her husband. It is true that a widow obtaining, an
interest in coparcenary property by s. 3(2) does not inherit
that interest but once her interest has ceased to have the
character of
(1) [1965] 1. S.C.R. 26.
Pratapmull Agarwalla vs Dhanabati Bibi on 4 November, 1935
The interest which a widow acquires under s. 3(2) of Act 18
of 1937 has no analogy with the interest which a female
member of a Hindu joint family acquires in the property of
the joint family allotted to her on partition between her
sons or grandsons. It is true, as observed in Pratapmull
Agarwalla v. Dhanabati Bibi and Others(1) that under
Mitakshara law when the family estate in a Hindu joint
family is divided a wife or mother is entitled to a share,
but is not recognized as the owner of such share until the
division of the property is actually made, as she has no
pre-existing rights in the estate save a right of
maintenance. If she dies before the property is divided,
her share in the property falls back into the property from
which it was carved out. But a Hindu widow acquires under
s. 3(2), even before division of the property, an interest
in property and that interest gets defined as soon as an
unequivocal demand for partition is made by her.
Movva Subba Rao And Anr. vs Movva Krishna Prasadam Minor By Padyala ... on 27 March, 1953
The dictum of the Madras High Court in Movva Subba Rao and
Another v. Movva Krishna Prasadam and Anr(2) that the
widow's interest is a personal interest and comes to an end
on her death cannot be regarded as a correct statement of
the law.
Parappa Alias Hanumanthappa And Anr. vs Nagamma And Ors. on 3 September, 1953
The following observations made by Subba Rao., J., in
delivering the judgment of the Full Bench in Parappagari
Parappa alias Hanumanthappa and Another- v. Parappagari
Nagamma and
(1) L.R. 63 I. A. 33. (2) I.L.R. 1954 Mad. 257.
(3) A.I.R. 1956 Nag. 110. (4) I.L.R. 1957 M.P. It 4.
Section 2 in The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Musammat Girja Bai vs Sadashiv Dhundiraj on 19 May, 1916
Counsel for the appellant contended that the right vested in
the surviving coparceners to take the interest vested in the
widow enures so long as the widow does not, by suit or by
private arrangement reduce her interest in the property of
the coparcenary to exclusive possession. He submitted that
the expression "partition" in S. 3(3) means not merely
severance of status, but division of interest by metes and
bounds followed by assumption of exclusive possession by the
widow. There is no warrant for this submission. The widow
acquires by statute the same right to claim partition which
a male owner has, and as pointed out by the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council in Giria Bai v. Sadashiv
Dhundiraj and Others(1):
1