Is Possession Key for Hindu Female Ownership? SC Explains!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court clarified that for a Hindu female’s right to full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she must have actual or legal possession of the property, acquired through inheritance, partition, or in lieu of maintenance (paras 22-24).

Court’s View

The Court held that the lack of possession by Smt. Nandkanwarbai or her adopted son, Kailash Chand, meant they could not claim ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, rendering the Revenue suit for partition unsustainable (paras 26-27).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979, concluding that neither Smt. Nandkanwarbai nor Kailash Chand were ever in possession of the suit property, and thus could not claim it under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (paras 28-30).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, Mukat Lal, argued that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no possession of the property, and thus, her adopted son Kailash Chand could not claim ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Mukat Lal relied on the previous civil court judgment that denied her title and possession.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the judgment in Ram Vishal v. Jagannath and M. Sivadasan v. A. Soudamini, which emphasize the necessity of possession for claiming ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Case of the Respondent

The respondent, Kailash Chand, argued that as the adopted son of Smt. Nandkanwarbai, he was entitled to a share in the joint family property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Respondent Relied On

The respondent relied on the precedent set by Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal, which supported the widow’s right to maintenance leading to ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding possession and succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that possession is a necessary prerequisite for a Hindu female to claim full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (paras 22-24).

Question: Why was the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 dismissed?
Answer: The suit was dismissed because neither Smt. Nandkanwarbai nor her adopted son Kailash Chand were ever in possession of the suit property, a requirement for claiming ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (paras 26-27).

Question: What was the significance of the previous civil court judgment in this case?
Answer: The previous civil court judgment had dismissed Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s claim for title and possession, which was never challenged, thus establishing that she was never in possession of the suit property (para 26).

Question: How does the case of Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi v. Rajendra alias Lallu Lal relate to this judgment?
Answer: In Munni Devi, the Court held that possession under a pre-existing right to maintenance could lead to full ownership under Section 14(1). However, in this case, Smt. Nandkanwarbai lacked possession, making Munni Devi inapplicable (paras 18-20).

Question: What did the Court say about the requirement of possession for applying Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act?
Answer: The Court reiterated that possession, either actual or legal, is crucial for applying Section 14(1), and without it, the claim under this section cannot be sustained (paras 22-24).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Order: May 16, 2024
Case Name: Mukatlal vs. Kailash Chand (D) Through LRS. and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12842 of 2018)