Paridhi Arya
Published on May 23, 2022 at 22:14 IST
The Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that a widow holding a sole possession in a property of Hindu Undivided Family will be presumed that such property will be used for fulfilment of her Right of Maintenance.
But in such a case, there should not be any other alternative provided by existing coparcener in lieu of her maintenance.
The Petition was filed by Daulaji for taking possession and mesne profit earned by Respondent Bhonri Devi who is a widow.
The Plaintiff made contention that he was only surviving heir and also a legatee in the will of his father which makes him entitle to the possession of the property.
The Respondent replied in the written statement that she derives income from such property. She holds the limited right which became absolute in accordance of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The issue of the case is whether Bhonri Devi had become absolute owner on coming in force the Hindu Succession Act ,1956.
The Bench referred the decision as explained in ‘V. Tulasamma Case’:
“The words possessed by used in Section 14 subclass one are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property even though Hindu women is not in actual or physical position of the same of course it is equally well settled that the position of the widow must be under some vestige of a claim write a title because the Section does not contemplate the position of any rank trespass without any right or title.”
The Court ordered that the Respondent holds possession and collects rent from it and maintaining herself is sufficient to create presumption though no document to show such charge and dismissed the Appeal.
The Court observed “Hindu woman’s Right to Maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between husband and wife such right was recognized and enjoying under the pure shastric Hindu law long before the passing of the 1937 and the 1946 acts where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal position of the HUF property that itself would create a presumption that such property was a marked for realization offer pre-existing of maintenance.”