SMT. HIMI AND ANR. versus SMT. HIRA DEVI AND ORS.

SMT. HIMI AND ANR. versus SMT. HIRA DEVI AND ORS.

The restricted right created by consent decree for possession during lifetime of 'B' was not in lieu of any pre-existing right or maintenance, so Section 14(2) applied. 'B' did not become absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1) and thus could not transfer title beyond her own restricted estate.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mt. Himi; Appellant: Mt. Himi (second name: Anr.); Respondent: Smt. Hira Devi; Respondent: Bellur Ram; Respondent: Budhu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Section 14(1) and 14(2) Hindu Succession Act, Female Hindu Property Rights, Consent Decree and Restricted Estate
Succession Hindu Law Property Law Interpretation of Section 14(1) and 14(2) Hindu Succession Act Female Hindu Property Rights Consent Decree and Restricted Estate

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mt. Himi

Appellant

Mt. Himi (second name: Anr.)

Appellant

Smt. Hira Devi

Respondent

Bellur Ram

Respondent

Budhu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a restricted right to occupy property flowing from consent terms not based on maintenance is covered by Section 14(2) or Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether Mt. Himi (Utti) became absolute owner or had restricted estate under the Hindu Succession Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The restricted right created by consent decree for possession during lifetime of 'B' was not in lieu of any pre-existing right or maintenance, so Section 14(2) applied. 'B' did not become absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1) and thus could not transfer title beyond her own restricted estate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of Himachal Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No. 18 of 1978 dated 5th August 1988 set aside.
  • Decree for possession passed by Senior Sub-Judge, Kulu (dated 6th September 1976), confirmed by Additional District Judge, Mandi (dated 19th November 1977) restored.