Supreme Court of India · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Ganapati (Dead) by his LRs v. Prabhakar & Others

Bench

S.V.N. Bhatti, J. and N.V. Anjaria, J.

Author

S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Decided

22 September 2026, New Delhi

Appeal from

Judgment dated 19.07.2012 in R.S.A. No. 551 of 2007, High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad

Counsel

Mr. Anil Katarki, for the Appellants · Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Senior Advocate, for the Respondents

Catchwords

Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 — Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 14(1) and 14(2) — Intestate death of Hindu male in 1949, survived by son and widow — Widow’s limited interest (Hindu Women’s Estate) — Enlargement into absolute ownership — Whether partition between widow and son is a pre-condition — Held, partition not a sine qua non — Will executed by widow in favour of daughter — Sale by legatee pendente lite — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 100 — Interference by High Court in second appeal upheld.

Headnote

1. Widow steps into the husband’s shoes. Where a Hindu male died intestate in 1949, his widow, by operation of Section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, took the husband’s interest in the property, subject to the limitation in Section 3(3) that such interest is the limited interest known as a Hindu Women’s Estate. Section 3(2) is, in effect, a confirmation by the Legislature of a right to obtain the property of another on the latter’s death; property may devolve not only by survivorship or inheritance but also through an Act of the Legislature. [Paras 13, 15]
2. Section 14(1) enlarges the limited estate. The consistent view of the Court is to recognise the right of a Hindu widow as blossoming into an absolute right, except in cases falling under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The widow held her husband’s interest subject to the restrictions of Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act; Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act takes away that effect and she becomes the absolute owner of the property devolved on her upon the husband’s death. [Paras 13, 15]
3. Partition is not a pre-condition. Partition between the son and the widow is, as is well settled, not a sine qua non for the widow to continue enjoying the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by the propositus. Even assuming that no partition took place in the undivided property, the shares in the coparcenary are subject to fluctuation but not to denial of the right. Failure of the defendants to prove the pleaded oral partition does not affect this legal consequence, which remains intact. [Paras 13, 15]
4. Scope of Section 14(2). Section 14(2) operates as a proviso and applies only to instruments, decrees, awards or gifts that create an independent or new title in the female for the first time. Where an instrument merely recognises a pre-existing right, Section 14(2) has no application, and the expression “possessed by” in Section 14(1) has the widest amplitude. V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy and Raghubar Singh v. Gulab Singh followed. [Para 14]
5. Application. The High Court rightly applied the admitted facts to the binding precedents and held that the widow became the absolute owner of the suit houses; that her registered Will dated 13.10.1984 in favour of her daughter (Defendant No. 1) was therefore valid; and that Defendant No. 1, as absolute owner, could sell TMC No. 1074 to Defendant No. 3. The High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction conformed to the grounds available under Section 100 CPC. [Paras 8, 16]

Substantial Question of Law (High Court)

“Whether the Courts below were justified in ignoring the vesting of right in Smt. Kashibai — the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 — by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Right to Properties Act, 1937 read with Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?” [Para 6]

Facts in Brief

• The suit properties are house properties bearing TMC Nos. 1074 and 1075 at Terdal Village, Jamkhandi Taluka, Bagalkot District, Karnataka. [Para 2]
• Kashibai executed a registered Will (Ex. D-2) on 13.10.1984 in favour of D-1. After Kashibai’s death in 1986, D-1 secured mutation of the properties in the municipal records for 1987–88. [Para 3]
• The Plaintiff sued in 1988 for declaration and perpetual injunction, claiming to have succeeded as absolute owner to the exclusion of Kashibai and her daughters. Pending the suit, D-1 sold TMC No. 1074 to D-3 by registered Sale Deed (Ex. D-1) dated 03.08.1995. [Para 3]
• The defendants pleaded an oral partition under which the suit properties fell to Kashibai’s share, and in the alternative, Kashibai’s right as widow of Gangaram. [Para 4]

Proceedings Below

Contentions

• Appellants: The High Court erred in confirming Kashibai’s right and expanding it into an absolute right; the respondents’ claim rested on an oral partition found not proved; Kashibai could not be said to have enjoyed the property in her own right between 1949 and 1956. [Para 10]
• Respondents: The relationship is admitted; on Gangaram’s death in 1949 the Plaintiff and Kashibai were each entitled to a half share under Section 3 of the 1937 Act; there is no requirement in law that the right becomes absolute only upon partition. [Para 11]

Cases Referred

• Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v. Potti Krishnavenamma, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 35 [Para 11]
• V. Tulasamma & Others v. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99 — followed [Paras 11, 14.1]
• Raghubar Singh & Others v. Gulab Singh & Others, (1998) 6 SCC 314 — followed [Paras 11, 14.2]