Pala Singh vs Jagir Kaur

G.C. Mittal, J.—After Pala Singh and Jagir Kaur were engaged, Pala Singh gifted half of his agricultural land by registered document dated 13.2.1952 (Ex. D1) in favour of Jagir Kaur. It was clearly mentioned therein that she would be owner (Malik) of the property. However, in the latter part of the document it was stated that the land was being given to her for maintenance for her life and a restriction was imposed on her alienation. It was also mentioned that on her death, the property would go back to his reversioners. Thereafter they were married. After some time, they could not pull on and when her husband refused to give mesne profits to her, she filed a suit for possession of the gifted land on 16.3.1974. By then consolidation had taken place and lesser area had been allotted.

The husband contested the suit. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit for possession after recording the findings that the gift was complete and she had been made full owner therein and in any case, by virtue of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 she had become full owner, because it was recited in the gift-deed that the property was given to her for her maintenance. This is second appeal by the husband.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find no scope for interference in this appeal.

Shri Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the husband, has argued that since in the gift deed it was mentioned that on her death, the property would revert to the donor''s heirs and that she would not have any right to alienate the property, in view of Ram Gopal Vs. Nand Lal and Others, it should be held that in the gift-deed only the widow''s estate was passed to her and not the unrestricted estate. The aforesaid case was decided before the Hindu Succession Act had come into force. Assuming the aforesaid case is applicable to the facts of the present case, even if the widow''s estate had been passed under the gift-deed for the wife''s maintenance for her life time. it matured into full ownership by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act. In this behalf, reference may be made to V. Tulsa Ram v. V. Sesha Reddy AIR 1977 S.C. 1944.

The Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that Jagir Kaur was full owner of the property, and was entitled to seek possession.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.