Home case analysis Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (1987)

Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (1987)

July 28, 2024

This article is written by Trisha Prasad. The article analyses a crucial Supreme Court judgement that was delivered in the case of Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (AIR 197 SC 1493) which played an important role in interpreting the meaning, scope and purpose of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. This article discusses the significance of the judgement ensuring uniformity in the application of the Section as well as reiterating the rights of a widowed Hindu woman in relation to the inheritance of her husband’s property.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Supreme Court in this case of Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (1987), interpreted the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 to ensure a uniform application of the law, irrespective of the jurisdiction within which any case arose or suit property is situated. This case primarily focused on the conversion or transformation of a widow’s limited rights or ownership over property that she inherited from her deceased husband to full ownership over that property under Hindu law. The Apex Court specifically analysed and determined whether the widow in this case would become the full owner of the property after its reconveyance subsequent to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. The judgement also addressed the concept of reversioners and the impact of the Hindu Succession Act on the rights of reversioners.

Details of the case

Parties

Appellant: Jagannathan Pillai
Respondent: Kunjithapadam Pillai

Case no.

Civil Appeal No. 1196 of 1973

Equivalent citations

AIR 1987 SC 1493, 1987 SCR (2) 1070, 1987 (2) SCC 572

Court

The Supreme Court of India

Bench

Justice M.P Thakkar and Justice B.C Ray

Decided on

21st April, 1987

Facts of the case

In this case a widowed Hindu female had acquired her husband’s property after the latter’s death. This acquisition took place before the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17th June 1956. This transaction hence took place in accordance with the concept of a “widow’s estate” under traditional Hindu laws also known as Shastric laws.

The widow continued to have possession of the said property until she transferred the same to another person (referred to as the alienee) by executing a registered sale or gift deed in favour of the alienee. Further, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, the alienee re-transferred the property to the widow. This transaction, in effect, reversed the first transaction and restored the widow’s rights in the concerned property.

The question brought before the court by the parties was in relation to the status of ownership of the widow after the reversal of the first transaction or reconveyance of the property.

It is pertinent to note that, if a widow had inherited property in similar circumstances in Orissa or Andhra Pradesh, she would be considered as “limited owner” of the property. At the same time, if the property was inherited in Madras, Punjab, Bombay or Gujarat, she would be considered as an “Absolute owner” of the property. This appeal was filed by the appellant against the decision of the Madras High Court where the appellant had attempted to present that the view propounded by the High Courts of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh have to be considered positively while opposed to the views taken by the High Courts of Madras, Punjab, Bombay and Gujarat. The appellant had failed to uphold this contention in the Madras High Court.

Issues raised

Whether, after reconveyance of the property subsequent to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow will become a full owner of the concerned property as per Section 14(1) of the Act.

Laws/concepts involved in this case

Widow Property under Hindu Law

Prior to the Hindu Succession Act

Prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, as per traditional Hindu Law, a widow had limited ownership over her deceased husband’s property. This was referred to as the widow’s estate or property. The widow had limited rights and possession over the property as she was only allowed to enjoy the property during her lifetime and not alienate or sell the same. In simple words, widows were treated as “life tenants” of their deceased husband’s property. After the death of the widow, the property would in practice revert to the heirs of her deceased husband.

Reversionary Heirs

Under traditional Hindu law, a widow only has limited ownership over her deceased husband’s estate. After the lifetime of the widow, the property will revert to the next heirs of her deceased husband as if he had lived up and died at the time of her death. These persons are referred to as reversionary heirs or reversioners. The legal heirs of the husband, in the order of succession, will be considered as reversioners. In simple words, a Hindu woman or widow, under traditional Hindu law, had the right to only enjoy the possession and ownership of her deceased husband’s property during her lifetime without alienating it and after her death, the property will still be considered as part of her deceased husband’s property and not her own estate. Hence, the property will be reverted to or inherited by her husband’s reversioners and not her own legal heirs.

Post-Hindu Succession Act

After the Hindu Succession Act was enacted and came into force in 1956, widows were entitled to inherit both self-acquired and ancestral property of their deceased husbands. Unlike the situation that persisted before the Act, widows are granted full ownership rights over the property that they received or inherited after the death of their husband by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. The Section further stated that any property that the woman acquired either before or after the commencement of the Act will be considered as her own property as long as the relevant instrument of transfer does not expressly restrict or limit the woman’s ownership and right.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 14 is one of the few sections of the Act that have a retrospective applicability.

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act specifically states that any property that is acquired by a Hindu woman either before the commencement of the Act or after will vest full ownership in that woman and not a limited ownership.

The explanation of this Sub-Section further clarifies that “property” as mentioned in the Sub-section refers to both movable and immovable property that may be acquired by a Hindu woman by any possible legal means including:

Inheritance: Any property that is received by the woman from a deceased relative, either pursuant to the laws of succession or on the basis of the deceased person’s will.
Partition: Any share in property received by a woman after the division of a jointly owned property, usually a family or ancestral property.
Gift from either a relative or any other known person irrespective of whether it was before or after her marriage (if married)
In the form of or in place of maintenance: Any share or portion of property or assets received by a woman either as a part of a plan of maintenance or instead of regular monetary payment for maintenance.
Self- Acquired Property as a result of the woman’s skill and efforts
Purchase of property by the woman
Property held by the woman as Stridhan immediately before the Act came into force.

Section 14(2) provides exceptions to the application of Sub-section (1). According to this Subsection, Section 14(1) will not apply to any property acquired by way of gift, will, the decree of a court or any other instrument if the terms of such gift, will, decree or instrument expressly transfers restricted or limited ownership to the widow. This means that irrespective of how the property is acquired, if the terms of the transfer or acquisition of property specify that the woman will have restricted or limited ownership over the property, the provisions of Sub-section (1) will not apply.

Spes Successionis

Spes successionis is a Latin term that translates to “hope to succeed.” It simply refers to the hope or expectation of succeeding or inheriting a property in the future. It is a right that only becomes legally enforceable when the succession actually happens or when there is no doubt that the succession will happen. This right is contingent on the status of any potential heir of the owner of the property.

For example, if X transfers property to Y on the condition that if Y does not have any legal heirs at the time of his death, the said property will be inherited by A. A, in this case, expects to inherit the property in the future. A’s chance to inherit the property will be contingent to whether Y will have legal heirs in the future or not.

Rule of nemo dat quod non habet

While this Latin term has not been expressly mentioned in the present case, the concept of the principle has been discussed. ‘Nemo dat quod non habet’ is a Latin term that translates to “no one gives what he does not have. This rule is generally associated with the transfer of property and interest in or possession of property. This rule essentially means that a person cannot transfer a better title in a property than what they themselves possess. For example, if someone has only limited ownership over a property, they cannot transfer the property to another person, granting full ownership to the transferee.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturu Swami vs. Setra Veeravva and Ors. (1958)

The Apex Court in Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kutturuswami vs. Setra Veeravva and Ors. (1958), discussed the scope of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the meaning of the term “possessed by a female Hindu” was analysed. The facts of the case were that one Kari Veerappa died, leaving behind a will that mentioned details of his estate and permitted his wife (widow) Setra Veeravva to adopt a son for the continuance of the family. The will expressly stated that she would be permitted to adopt as many times as necessary (in case of unsuccessful adoptions) as long as the boy being adopted is approved by the five trustees (persons who became trustees after the death of the widow) appointed by Kari Veerappa. The widow, Veeravva attempted to adopt twice, in 1939 (unsuccessful adoption) and 1943. The petitioner, who claimed to be a reversioner of the deceased, Veerappa, filed this case, seeking a declaration that the second adoption was invalid. Though the primary issue in the case raised by the petitioner was in relation to the validity of the adoption, the possession, ownership and alienation of the concerned property was also discussed in relation to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The primary objection put forth by the respondent, Veeravva was that as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of whether the adoption was valid or not, Veeravva became the full owner of her deceased husband’s estate.

The Apex Court in this matter interpreted the meaning of “property possessed by a female Hindu” under Section 14 to include even constructive possession. The Court was of the opinion that even if the adoption was invalid, Veeravva had become the full owner of Veerappa’s estate after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. On the other hand, even if the adoption was valid and the adopted son was in actual possession of the property, it must be deemed that Veeravva had constructive possession over the property.

Ganesh Mahanta and Ors. vs. Sukria Bewa and Ors. (1963)

In the case of Ganesh Mahanta and Ors. vs. Sukria Bewa and Ors. (1963) that was brought before the High Court of Orissa by the plaintiffs, claiming shares in the partition of a property that was inherited by a widow, on the death of her husband. She had inherited these properties as a limited owner prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The widow subsequently transferred the property by way of a registered gift deed to one of the defendants in 1946. A suit was filed before the Munsif Court against this transaction. The court declared that the transaction would not be binding on the reversionary heirs beyond the widow’s lifetime. Subsequently, in 1957, a portion of the property was transferred to the widow. There was a third transaction in the same year through which the widow transferred the same property to two other defendants. A partition suit was then instituted after the widow passed away in 1958. The defendant’s claim in this issue was in tune with the fact that the widow in question gained full ownership over the property after the Hindu Succession Act came into effect and that the third transaction in 1957 was valid and vested full title to the property in the two defendants.

The High Court, however, held that, considering the fact that the widow had limited ownership while making the first transaction, all of the subsequent transactions of the same property would only give the transferee limited ownership. This meant that, when the property was retransferred to the widow after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, she only attained limited ownership over the same. The court justified this on the principle that anyone transferring any property in favour of another person cannot transfer any title higher than what they enjoyed. The provision of the Hindu Succession Act (Section 14(1)) was overlooked by the court in this judgement.

Teja Singh and Anr vs. Jagat Singh and Ors (1963)

This decision in the case of Teja Singh and Anr vs. Jagat Singh and Ors (1963), was delivered by the High Court of Punjab in 1963. Uttam Devi, the widow of the last male owner of the concerned land inherited the same after her husband’s death. The widow, in 1938 gifted the inherited property to two persons, Daulat Singh and Charna. Prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, a suit was filed by the reversioners of the last male owner of the property, claiming that Uttam Devi had only limited ownership over the property. The Court at that time ruled in favour of the reversioners, passing a declaratory decree to that effect. In 1959, Daulat Singh transferred the same property, in the form of a gift, back to Uttam Devi. Subsequently, in 1959, Uttam Devi sold the property that was gifted back to her. The contention of the petitioners was that despite the fact that the widow lost possession over the concerned property after she executed the gift deed in 1938, she regained possession over a partition of the property as a result of the gift made by Daulat Singh. Thereby, by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the widow, Uttam Devi gained complete ownership over the concerned property, allowing her to sell the property. According to the petitioner, this would in effect mean that the reversioners cannot take benefit of the declaratory decree that was earlier passed in their favour. The respondents on the other hand, argued that the widow lost possession over the property in 1938 and could not acquire lawful possession of the property through the gift back in 1959 especially due to the fact that the declaratory decree that was passed in favour of the reversioners, intervened between 1938 and 1959, the dates of the first gift and the gift back date respectively.

The Court held that the widow, Uttam Devi had gained lawful possession over the portion of the property that was gifted back to her by Daulat Singh and she had become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The declaratory decree was not to be treated as a decree giving title to the reversioners.

Bai Champa and Ors. vs. Chandrakanta Hiralal Dahyabhai Sodagar and Ors. (1973)

In Bai Champ and Ors. vs. Chandrakanta Hiralal Banyabhai Sodagar and Ors. (1973), brought before the High Court of Gujarat, the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that the widow was the full owner of the concerned property pursuant to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The facts of the suit are that the owner Lalbhai Chunnilal died in the year 1915, leaving behind his widow, Bai Mukta. His brother too died in the year 1959, leaving behind his widow, Bai Champa, a son and two daughters. Subsequently, Bai Mukta died in 1963. However, during her lifetime, she had inherited property after the death of her husband and sold some of the inherited property. Some of the properties were also given to the respondents through Bai Mukta’s will. The plaintiffs filed this case, claiming the ownership of the properties was vested in them by virtue of their status as reversioners of Lalbhai Chunnilal. The Court observed that the widow, Bai Mukta was in possession of the properties when the Hindu Succession Act came into force and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, she has gained full ownership over the properties.

Judgement in Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (1987)

Purpose of Section 14(1)

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the purpose of enacting Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was to protect the interest of women. In the context of a widow’s property, the purpose of the section is to make a widow the full or absolute owner of a property that she would have otherwise had limited rights over, irrespective of whether the property was acquired before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The court stated that Section 14(1) comes into the picture when the rights of a Hindu widow to a specific property are questioned. In such a situation, it is sufficient for the concerned widow to prove that she had acquired the said property and was, as on that date, in legal possession of the property.

Specific interpretation of Section 14(1)

In order to understand the application of the Section, the court specifically interpreted certain terms and phrases that form an important part of the Section. According to the Court, the term “possessed” does not merely refer to a physical possession over the property. The term refers to the acquisition of some rights, title or interest in the property. Hence, in the context of Section 14(1), a legal possession or constructive possession is sufficient and physical possession over the property is not essential for the application of the section.

The Court further reiterated the meaning and purpose of the phrase, ‘Whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act.’ It was observed that the phrase clarifies that any property that a Hindu female possesses, regardless of when it was actually acquired, will be held by her as a full or absolute owner. The Act aimed to remove any discrimination between property that was possessed by a Hindu woman at the time of commencement of the Act or when the right over the property was called into question that may have otherwise existed based on whether it was acquired before or after the commencement of the Act.

Ownership of property and rights of the reversioners

In this instant matter, the Court held that, despite temporarily losing possession over the property in 1938, the widow regained or acquired possession over the property when it was transferred back to her by way of a gift by Daulat Singh. The transaction by which Daulat Singh had earlier gained interest in the property was reversed after the same was gifted back to the widow. This is referred to as reconveyance and the widow was restored to the position that persisted before the now reversed transaction took place. The court held that the widow’s limited ownership over the property was converted into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The widow had sufficient possession over the property and had acquired an interest in the property as required under Section 14(1).

In relation to the rights of the reversioners, the court held that since the property was transferred back to the widow and the initial transaction was reversed, the rights of the reversioners who merely had spes successionis in the property was not affected. The court further observed that the rights of the reversioners would have been affected if Daulat Singh (the donee) had transferred the said property to a third person. In such a situation, it would be correct to apply the principle that one cannot transfer a title higher than the title that he holds in relation to the property. This principle was, however, not applicable in the instant matter.

Analysis of the case

The judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai (1987) was a significant milestone in not only reinforcing the property rights of Hindu Women but also a major contributor to policies, legislations and various other efforts taken towards the broader subject of gender equality in India.

The primary focus of this judgement was to interpret the application of Section 14(1) which intends to give full ownership over the property of a woman that is in her constructive, legal or physical possession, irrespective of whether the property was acquired before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court aptly provided comprehensive interpretations of various terms and phrases including “Possessed” and “whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act ” which form an important basis for the uniform and effective application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Traditionally, the Hindu law only permitted widows to have limited ownership over any property that they had inherited from their husbands. However, the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act as well as the interpretation of this judgement transformed this limited ownership to full ownership, allowing widows to have control and complete authority over their inherited property.

The court rightly compared the position of law adopted by various High Courts in India in order to emphasise the need for uniform interpretation and application of the law with the aim of fulfilling the purpose and legislative intent that underscores the Section. The Supreme Court highlighted the discrepancies in the application and interpretation of the law and laid down the foundation for a consistent approach.

This judgement plays a pivotal role in ensuring that discrimination in property rights is eliminated by emphasising that the date of acquisition of the property is not the sole basis for determining ownership.

Conclusion

The judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagannathan Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai played an important role in interpreting and reiterating the purpose, meaning and scope of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The judgement sought to ensure a uniform application of the said Section throughout India. The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of the provision is to secure the rights of Hindu women as full owners of properties that they had acquired either before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. This judgement protects the rights and interests of a widow and reinforces the objective of the Act to elevate the property rights of Hindu women in India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can a widow transfer or alienate the property that she inherits from her husband?

Yes, after the commencement of the Act of 1956, a widow who has gained full ownership over the property that she inherits from her deceased husband, has the right to sell, lease, transfer, gift or dispose off the property in any manner that is legal and as she deems fit.

How did the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 affect the concept of reversioners?

The Hindu Succession Act (1956) has significantly diminished the rights of reversioners of any deceased person. Traditionally, reversioners of a deceased husband would inherit the property after the death of the widow. However, after the commencement of the Act of 1956, a widow gains full ownership over the property that she inherits from her husband. Consequently, the property will be inherited by the heirs of the widow and not by the reversioners of the deceased husband.

What types of property are covered under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 is applicable to any property, both movable and immovable, that are acquired by a Hindu woman:

By inheritance which includes both self-acquired property and ancestral property
By purchase
By partition
By gift
Through skill or effort
In lieu of maintenance
In the form of Stridhana
By any other lawful means