Skip to main content

Hindu woman absolute owner of property under Hindu Succession Act: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has made it clear that the moment property is given in favour of a Hindu woman, she becomes the absolute owner despite the restrictions and limitations contained in the settlement deed.

Justice S Vimala delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by Jayalakshmi Ammal, second wife of one Dharmarajapillai, against the order of Cuddalore District Court in favour of the sale of property by first wife Swarnathammal to Kaliaperumal.

Jayalakshmi Ammal contended that the power conferred under the settlement was only a limited one and not absolute.

Rejecting the contention,the judge said the express language used in the settlement deed interpreted in the light of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, would lead to the conclusion that what was conferred was only an absolute one and not a limited estate.

"Therefore the first wife has got every right to dispose the property and the sale is valid. Therefore purchaser of the property is succeeded and the appeal is dismissed."

Dharmarajapillai, who lived with Swarnathammal for 26 years, had married Jayalakshmi Ammal with the former's consent on November 19, 1965 as the couple had no children.

The same day Dharmarajapillai executed a settlement deed in which it was mentioned that she can enjoy the property till her lifetime and after that it will revert back to him.

The Judge said "the recitals in the documents reveal the expectation in the mind of the settler that he would get back the property at any cost. There is an assumption that the first wife will predecease him. He would live and enjoy the property after her death."

The judge said the amendment was brought to the Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to take care of such documents existing with fraudulent intentions.

The section says "any property acquired by a Hindu Female before or after the commencement of this Act shall be held as full owner and not as a limited owner and hence the sale of property by the first wife is valid," the judge said.

While delivering the judgment, the judge made some observations about the status of married women who do not become pregnant.

"Though women are not alone the cause for the issue yet the problem of infertility has broken many homes, separated many couples and caused disharmony between the couples while they are living together," she observed.

She further said "the most inhumane form of insult is the husband, who getting married while the first wife is alive, trying to justify the second marriage in the name of giving gift of property to first wife."

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/hindu-woman-absolute-owner-of-property-under-hindu-succession-act-madras-high-court/articleshow/34936219.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...