Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, Housabai, against the judgment and decree of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.446 of 1987 dated 19.06.1993. The original plaintiff, Housabai, was the widow of a deceased coparcener who died in 1934, leaving behind her and a daughter. She adopted Eknath, the son of her stepbrother, on 19.06.1946. She claimed that she had a half share in the suit lands and that the alienations made by Eknath to defendants Nos. 6 to 12 were not binding on her. She filed a suit for partition, separate possession, and a share in the income from the suit fields. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, but the first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that her right was extinguished by her remarriage and that the alienations were binding. The High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that Housabai had a pre-existing right of maintenance and partition in the joint family property, which was not extinguished by her remarriage. The court held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only clarified that such a right becomes an absolute right. The alienations made by the adopted son without her consent were not binding on her share. The court restored the trial court's decree with modifications, granting her a half share in the suit properties and directing partition.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Widow's Right - Section 14(1) - Pre-existing Right - Widow's right of maintenance and partition in joint family property is a pre-existing right, and any alienation by the adopted son without her consent is not binding on her share. Held that the widow's right to maintenance and partition existed prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Section 14(1) only clarified that such right becomes an absolute right. (Paras 10-12)
B) Hindu Succession Act - Alienation - Section 6 - Coparcenary - Adopted son's alienation of coparcenary property without consent of widow is not binding on her share. Held that the widow, being entitled to maintenance and partition, had a right in the coparcenary property, and the alienations made by the adopted son were not binding on her. (Paras 13-15)
C) Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act - Remarriage - Section 2 - Forfeiture of Widow's Estate - Remarriage of a widow does not forfeit her right to maintenance or partition if she had a pre-existing right. Held that the widow's remarriage does not extinguish her right to claim partition of her share in the joint family property. (Paras 16-18)
D) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Adoption - Section 12 - Effect of Adoption - An adopted son is deemed to be the son of the adoptive father from the date of adoption, but the widow's rights prior to adoption are not affected. Held that the adoption does not divest the widow of her pre-existing rights. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the widow Housabai had a pre-existing right of maintenance and partition in the joint family property, and whether the alienations made by her adopted son Eknath were binding on her share.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the trial court's decree with modifications. The court declared that the plaintiff Housabai had a half share in the suit properties and that the alienations made by Eknath were not binding on her share. The court directed partition and separate possession of her share.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 14(1)
- Section 6
- Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act
- 1856
- Section 2
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- Section 12
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 8
- Partition
- Alienation
- Widow's Estate
- Adoption
- Coparcenary
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 23
SECOND APPEAL NO.425 OF 1993 WITH CA/123/1994 WITH CA/4065/1993 WITH CA/15336/2015
Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for Respondent No.5 (Absent).
Smt. Housabai W/o. Sadashiv Javak, Deceased Through L.Rs. Soluchana W/o. Raosaheb Kharade, Deceased Through L.Rs. (Expired on 24.5.2003) Pandharinath S/o. Raosaheb Kharade, Deceased Through his L.Rs. (Expired on 11.7.1998) 1. Smt. Ranjana W/o. Pandharinath Kharade, 2. Sow. Smita W/o. Snil Shelar, 3. Sow. Shewta W/o. Rajendra Jadhav, 4. Sow. Snehal W/o. Mahesh Kaalbhor, 5. Kum. Trupti D/o. Pandharinath Kharade, 6. Ranjit S/o. Pandharinath Kharade
1. Smt. Bhagirthibai w/o Eknath Javak, 2. Chandrakant Eknath Javak, 3. Suresh Eknath Javak, 4. Rajesh Eknath Javak, 5. Jayashri d/o Eknath Javak, 6. Sakharam Vithu Javak, 7. Rajaram Vithu Javak, 8. Bajirao Vithu Javak, 9. Rangnath Vithu Javak, 10. Dinkar Bhagwanta Javak, 11. Sopan Rambhau Javak (Dismissed), 12. Bapu Malhari Javak
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing the trial court's decree in a suit for partition and separate possession.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought restoration of the trial court's decree granting partition and separate possession of half share in the suit lands and a declaration that alienations by the adopted son were not binding.
Filing Reason
The original plaintiff, Housabai, claimed that she had a half share in the suit lands and that the alienations made by her adopted son Eknath were not binding on her. She filed the suit for partition, separate possession, and share in income.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiff's right was extinguished by her remarriage and that the alienations were binding.
Issues
Whether the widow Housabai had a pre-existing right of maintenance and partition in the joint family property.
Whether the alienations made by the adopted son Eknath were binding on the widow's share.
Whether the widow's remarriage extinguished her right to claim partition.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that Housabai had a pre-existing right of maintenance and partition, which became absolute under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the alienations by the adopted son were not binding on her share.
Respondents argued that Housabai's right was extinguished by her remarriage and that the alienations were valid and binding.
Ratio Decidendi
A widow's right to maintenance and partition in joint family property is a pre-existing right that existed prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14(1) of the Act only clarifies that such a right becomes an absolute right. The remarriage of a widow does not extinguish her right to claim partition of her share in the joint family property. Alienations made by the adopted son without the widow's consent are not binding on her share.
Judgment Excerpts
The widow's right to maintenance and partition is a pre-existing right, and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only clarifies that such a right becomes an absolute right.
The remarriage of a widow does not extinguish her right to claim partition of her share in the joint family property.
Alienations made by the adopted son without the widow's consent are not binding on her share.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff Housabai filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which reversed the decree. The legal heirs of Housabai filed the present second appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decree with modifications.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 14(1), Section 6
- Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856: Section 2
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Section 12
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 8
