Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by the appellants to challenge the judgment passed by the High Court, the three-judges bench of M.C. Mahajan*, S.R Das, and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that when a provision was made for the maintenance of Hindu widows or other females entitled to maintenance, they were just put in possession of the properties, and were allowed to exercise rights on them as maintenance-holders. Such an arrangement did not necessarily involve a conveyance of property in their favour. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was right when it found that “in view of the fact that the ladies were the childless widows of his predeceased son, the arrangement made by him could not have been intended by him to endure beyond their lives, that the arrangement was that the said ladies were to enjoy the usufruct of the properties, thus given to them for their lives and that an absolute estate in these ladies was unthinkable seeing that the properties given to the daughters-in-law were considerable”. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Background
In an instant case, three brothers Jainarain Hazra, Bipraprosad Hazra and Lakshminarain Hazra, were members of a joint family, and were governed by the Dayabhaga law. The three brothers, acquired considerable properties out of joint funds, and some of the properties were acquired in the name of the eldest son of Jainarain, namely Rajnarain, and some in name of his two wives, who were uterine sisters. Rajnarain looked after the family estate and managed the family properties. However, he passed away in 1892 and his two widows, continued to live with their father-in-law, Jainarain.
After the death of the Rajnarain, disputes arose between his widows and other family members, thus, Jainarain conceived the idea of partition amongst his brothers and allotting sufficient properties to his daughter-in-law, out of his share for their maintenance. In 1897, a partition was made amongst the brothers, and the properties in dispute fell to share of Jainarain. Thereafter, he made an arrangement with two widows, who were his daughter-in-law, wherein he put them in possession of the suit properties and earmarked a house for their separate residence, in lieu of their claim for maintenance and residence.
Subsequently, in 1901, Jainarain passed away and the widows of Rajnarain, continued to live in the family house with the heirs of Jainarain, who did not disturb their possession of the properties in suit. Further, in 1904, the widows took up separate residence in the house that had been set apart for that purpose by Jainarain. Appellant 1, son of the widow’s younger sister lived and was maintained by them. Further, on 08-10-1942, the widows made a gift of portion of the properties to Appellant 1, and another portion was gifted to his daughter, Appellant 3, and third portion was gifted to a deity whose shebaitship was vested in Appellant 1. Subsequently, the widows passed away.
Thereafter, the respondents filed a suit, for possession of properties on allegation that after the termination of the lives of the two maintenance-holders, they were entitled to possession of the properties, which under the arrangement had been handed over to the widows, and the usufruct of which they were entitled to enjoy for their lifetime. It was stated that they had no power to transfer these properties in the appellant’s favour, and the gift was a fraudulent transaction. However, the appellants resisted the suit on number of grounds and contended that the suit was barred by limitation, and that they were competent to dispose the property in the appellant’s favour as the gift deed was a valid document.
The Trial Court held that the suit was within time, and all the properties in the suit were the properties of Hazra family and not the stridhan of the widows. Further, the Trial Court stated that the partition as alleged by the respondents was proved, and the properties in suit were made over to the widows for life, by their father-in-law for maintenance.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the arrangement made by Jainarain was that the ladies were to enjoy the usufruct of the properties given to them for their lives. Thus, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was right in holding that the arrangements made Jainarain was that his two daughters-in-law were to enjoy the usufruct of the properties given to them in lieu of their maintenance, and the properties were to revert to Jainarain and his heirs after their deaths. It was a mere allotment of properties to the widows as a provision for their maintenance and they were entitled under the arrangement to enjoy them so long as they lived, but they had no further right or interest therein. The Supreme Court opined that from the circumstances of the case, it was not possible to infer that Jainarain intended to convey the properties to his two daughters-in-law by way of gift absolutely or for their lifetime and divest himself of his title in them.
Further, the Supreme Court opined that the appellants’ case was that the widows were absolute owners of the properties and Jainarain had no title in them. Thus, denied the title of Jainarain in total, and also, the respondents did not raise any alternative plea, that Jainarain gifted the properties in suit absolutely or for their lifetime to the widows. The Supreme Court opined that when a provision was made for the maintenance of Hindu widows or other females entitled to maintenance, they were just put in possession of the properties, and were allowed to exercise rights on them as maintenance-holders. Such an arrangement did not necessarily involve a conveyance of property in their favour.
The Supreme Court opined that, after Jainarain’s death, in spite of the continued ill-feeling between the widows and sons of Jainarain, none of them made any attempt to disturb or interfere with their possession. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was right when it found that “in view of the fact that the ladies were the childless widows of his predeceased son, the arrangement made by him could not have been intended by him to endure beyond their lives, that the arrangement was that the said ladies were to enjoy the usufruct of the properties thus given to them for their lives and that an absolute estate in these ladies was unthinkable seeing that the properties given to the daughters-in-law were considerable”. Thus, accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
[Bepin Behari Ray v. Rakhal Krishna Hazra, (1952) 2 SCC 478, decided on 14-11-1952]
Note: Maintenance of Hindu widows in joint family property
Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law. As per the provision, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, after her husband’s death, should be entitled to be maintained by her father-in-law. Further, the provision further specifies that, she was entitled to maintenance to the extent that she was unable to maintain herself, out of her own earnings, other properties, or from the estates of her husband, father, mother, son or daughter. Further, any obligation of father-in-law, to maintain her daughter-in-law, should not be enforceable if the father-in-law had not the means to do so from any coparcener property in his possession, out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share. Moreover, any such obligation of the father-in-law, should cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.
*Judgment authored by- Justice M.C. Mahajan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Atul Chandra Gupta, Senior Advocate (Sachindra Das Gupta, Advocate);
For the Respondents: Hiralal Chakravarty, Senior Advocate (Biswa Nath Mukherjee, Advocate).
