Rulia Ram and others vs Chuhar Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—One Hamir Singh was the owner of the agricultural land measuring 346 kanals 5 marlas. He had two wives, namely Mst. Giani and Mst. Bassan. From Mst. Giani, he had two sons, named, Rulia Ram and Munshi Ram, who are the decree-holders. From Mst. Bassan, he had one son, named Chuhar Singh, who is one of the judgment debtors. On November 28, 1943, the said Hamir Singh made a gift of 46 karals marlas of land out of his holding to his wife, Mst. Bassan and gave to each of his sons, about 100 kanals of land. After his death, his sons from Mst. Giani, filed a suit against, Mst. Bassan for possession of two thirds of the land gifted to her on the ground that the land was ancestral and as such the gift made to her was not binding on them The trial Court held that the property was ancestral, but the gift was made by the deceased as a provision for maintenance which was a limited right and, therefore, the same could not be impugned by the sons. Consequently, the suit was dismissed subject to the condition that on the death of Mst Bassan, the decree holders would be entitled to recover the possession of the two-thirds of the suit land The said decree of the trial Court was upheld up to the High Court in second appeal. this Court also observed that Hamir Singh, deceased, had gifted the property to Mst. Bassan as maintenance. Mst Bassan died on March 1, 1971, i.e , after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). The decree-holders, i.e., Rulia Ram and Munshi Ram, sought the execution of the decree in their favour to the extent of two-thirds share of the land gifted by Hamir Singh to Mst. Bassan. That application was contested on behalf of the sons of Mst. Bassan. It was pleaded by them that admittedly, the gift was made by way of maintenance and after the coming into force of the Act, she had become the full owner thereof in view of the provisions of section ]4(1)of the Act. The executing Court dismissed the objections mainly on the ground that Mst. Bassan got the land, in disupte, under the decree and, therefore, she could not said to have become the absolute owner thereof after the coming into force of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Act. In appeal, the learned Senior Sub-ordinate Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, reversed the said finding of the executing Court and came to the conclusion that Mst. Bassan did not get the property under the decree. It was given to her under the gift by way of maintenance. Since the decree was passed before the coming into force of the Act as at that time she had only a widow''s estate in the suit property, but in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, she had become the full owner thereof at the time of her death in the year 1971. In view of the said finding, the appeal was allowed, the order of the executing Court was set aside and the objections filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors were accepted. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree holders have filed this revision petition in this Court

The only question involved in this revision petition is as to whether Mst. Bassan had become the full owner of the suit land after the coming into force of the Act ?

Admittedly, the land, in suit, was given to her for her maintenance. Once it is so found, then, in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, she became the full owner thereof at the time of the coming into force of the Act. The decree challenging the gift made by Hamir Singh, deceased, in her favour was passed prior to the coming into force of the Act. Therefore, at the time of making of the gift, she had only a widow''s estate in the suit property. By virtue of the Act, she had become full owner of the suit propery at the time of her death because it was given to her in lieu of her maintenance.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the lower appellate Court as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.