| Name of the case | Jagannathan Pillai v Kunjithapadam Pillai |
| Decided on | 21.04.1987 |
| Civil Appeal No. | 1196 of 1973 |
| Citation | MANU/SC/0415/1987Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai and Ors. (21.04.1987 – SC) : MANU/SC/0415/1987 |
| Hon’ble Judges/Coram | B.C.Ray , and M.P.Thakkar [2] |
| Counsels on behalf of Petitioner | T.K.Krishnamoorthy Iyer, K Ram Kumar and K. Ram Mohan, Advs |
| Counsel on behalf of Respondent | T.S. Desai, K. Ramamurthy and A.T.M. Sampath, Advs. for Respondent No. 1and 2 and Rajendra Choudhary, for the Respondent No. 3 to 5, Advs. |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Acts/Rules/Orders used: | Article 133(1)(a); Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 4 |
| Procedural History | From the Judgment and Decree dated September 20, 1971 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 425 of 1964 |
| Disposition | Appeal Dismissed |
| Cases Overrule/Reversed | Ganesh Mahanta and Ors. Vs. Sukria Bewa and Ors. &Medicherla Venkataratnam v. Siddani Palamma and Ors. A.W.R. |
INTRODUCTION:
Historically there have been various instances where the rights of women were not given recognition. Society considered women to be subordinate to their husbands, and not equal to them. Women have long been subjected to the stigma of being a “weaker section” of society. Women are being pressured into giving up their rights as a result of gender imbalance, escalating gender inequity, and gender-based discrimination. For centuries, women all around the world have fought for the right to inherit family property. The reasoning behind opposing women’s property rights in diverse countries was that they do not permanently remain in their natal family. They become a part of their marital families once they marry. As a result, only the male members of the family possessed rights to their family’s property. However, women’s property rights have grown dramatically in the last few decades.
But owing to change in society there has been a paradigm shift in the way society viewed women. With the restoration of faith in the idealogy of equality irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. Hindu women’s property rights in India are governed by the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 primarily addressed Hindu widows’ property rights. It gave a Hindu widow the same share of her intestate husband’s property as her sons. However, it failed to address issues of women’s property rights in general; also, it did not grant coparcenary rights to Hindu women. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hence referred to as the 2005 Amendment), enacted in response to the 174th Law Commission Report, made significant amendments to the 1956 Act.
Facts of The Case:
The case predates the Hindu Succession Act 1956. This case is centered around a window Kunjithapadam Pillai, who is a Hindu female and acquired the property by virtue of the death of her husband before the Hindu Succession Act was enacted. She was bestowed with this property in accordance to the existing customary laws but afterwards transferred the same ownership towards an alienee.
The appellant was a widowed hindu who acquired the property aftermath the death of her husband before 17th June 1956 i.e before Hindu Succession Amendment act came into picture. The transfer happened by virtue of a window estate as per traditional Hindu norms. Later she lost the possession of the same plot by transferring the title to an alienee by a registered document of sale or registered document of gift. Later that property was retransferred to her name by a registered document after the Hindu Succession Amendment Act was enforced granting the lady the possession and right to the land that she lost in lieu of the transfer made to the alienee.
Legal Issues:
Now the issue pertaining to the aforementioned statement of facts are
- Whether after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956, does she acquires absolute possession as per Section 14(1)?
- Further the bone of contention was while getting the property from her husband she was given limited ownership of the property and therefore she transferred the limited ownership to the alienee and by re-transferring the same property he transferred the limited ownership of the property.
- Further she transferred the property towards the alienee, by a registered document of ‘sale’ or ‘gift’ before the initiation of the act. However, the property in question was retransferred to her by the alienee after the enforcement of the Act by a registered document and since the widow was not in possession of the property during the enactment of the act, the appellant Jagganatham Pillai challenged her right to property in the Madras High Court.
Judgement:
The Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act reads out:
Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.—
- Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
- Nothing contained in sub-section
- shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.
Clauses in statutes are not to be read in isolation rather in reference to the entire act and the motive of the lawmakers to bring in the statute. The court while delivering the judgment held that the entire motive of the section 14(1) is to take care of the interest of women and especially widowed women in estates and property. This section helps women with limited ownership to get complete ownership without taking into consideration the acquisition of property before or after the introduction of the act.
The act acts as a catalyst in the movement of ensuring empowerment of women. This comes into operation when there arises a question on widow’s rights. The widowed woman just has to prove that she was in possession of the concerned property.
Court said that possession under Section 14(1) will mean “acquisition of a right or interest in the property and not to physical possession acquired by force or without legal right. In the current instance, when the Hindu Female acquired the property from the alienee, which was sold to them prior to the adoption of the act, and now she had bought the same property for the same alienee, the concerned transaction by which the interest in the Hindu female’s property had been reversed, and her original position that existed before to the transaction will be included in the act and old.
The transaction would be obliterated and erased. As a result, when the property in
question she was in possession of it at the time in question, thus she regained and reclaimed her property rights, transforming her restricted rights into complete ownership.
This transaction of regaining lost property from the reversioner has no effect on his rights, as the possibility of inheriting the property has been eliminated, and the restoration of property rights earned by the Hindu female will change her ownership to full ownership rather than limited ownership.
While delivering the judgement the Apex court relied on several judgements of Madras High Court who also delivered the judgement in favour of Hindu Women. In the cases of
The court decided in Chinnakolandai Goundan v. Thanji Gounder, Teja Singh v. Jagat Singh, Ramgowda Aunagowda v. Bhausaheb, and Champa v. Chandrakant that the women would become the absolute owner of the property in such a situation, as the act is made with an objective of aiding Hindu widow women.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Supreme Court was justified in assessing and endorsing the verdict issued by the Madras High Court and other high courts. Women’s rights in India have been under attack from their inception. Many legislation have recently come to the aid of women, and the two support their status in the country. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling and legislation, it is obvious that the position of women regarding ownership of property inherited from their husband after his death remains unchanged under the Hindu succession laws and that the women will have full possession of the property regardless of whether it was granted to her before or after the commencement of the Hindu succession laws.
It cannot be said that an alienee cannot transfer a right greater than the right which he has on his own; that is, if only partial position or ownership was granted to the alienee, then complete possession will be transferred to the widow; the law of transferring only the amount of ownership which he has, that is, partial ownership, would have applied if the property was transferred to any other person or third party other than the widow.
In this case, the widow lost her right to the property for a short period of time due to a transfer she made on her own dime in the name of the alienee, and thus it cannot be compared to transferring property in the name of a stranger because the scenario is different and the widow’s circumstances and the need for the property cannot be compared to any other situation. Keeping in mind the objective behind the creation of the section and the entire act the legislature were of the opinion that the act and the law resulting from it should benefit women. In the event that the women regain their rights following the transfer of property in their names, which they had lost for a number of years.
In such a circumstance, section 14 (1) would come into play and protect the rights of such women, which would not be the case in the case of a stranger, and so it
It is not appropriate to compare the example of a widowed woman who has temporarily lost her property rights and restored with that of a third-party transfer. After the inception of the act, when the right of complete ownership was granted to a woman if a question arises during her lifetime or after her death regarding a property, and if the question concerns the scope of the women’s interest in the property which is in possession of that particular female after it was reinstalled in her, the answer will always be the same, and that is she will have absolute ownership in the property and not limited ownership.
As a result, the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts fell short in comparing two different situations and concluding that the Hindu female will have partial ownership in the property after it is returned to her, whereas the Supreme Court was correct in analyzing the situation of the women from the social aspects and concluding that section 14 provides complete rights to the women over the position of a property regardless of whether it is provided to him.
Written by S Abhipsha Dash an intern under legal vidhiya.
