Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)Chandradeo Singh And Ors. vs Mata Prasad And Ors. on 5 March, 1909
Singh & Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. (3) But the words of s.
14 of the Hindu Succession Act are express and explicit;
thereby a female Hindu possessed of property whether ac-
quired before or after the commencement of the Act holds it
as full owner and not as a limited owner. The interest to
which Kishan Devi became entitled on the death of her
husband under S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property
Act, 1937, in the property of the joint family is
indisputably her "property" within the meaning of S. 14 of
Act 30 of 1956, and when she became "full owner" of that
property she acquired a right unlimited in point of user and
duration and uninhibited in point of disposition.
We are unable to agree with Mr. Chatterjee that restrictions
on the right of the male members of a Hindu joint family
form the bed-rock on which the law relating to joint family
property under the Hindu Law is founded. Under the Law of
the Mitakshara as administered in the territory governed by
the Maharashtra and the Madras Schools and even in the State
of Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu coparcener is competent to
alienate for value his undivided interest in the entire
joint family property or any specific property without the
assent of his coparceners. A male member of a Hindu family
governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly
subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in
the joint family property but a widow acquiring an interest
in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is
not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not a
ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has
not chosen to impose.
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1