LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 18 September 2026

Is a female Hindu possessed of property under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 where she has a legal right to possess it?

VEERAMUTHU NAICKER v. RANGARAJU NAIDU(DECSD.,)
SA.1049/1992 · 2026:MHC:3855 · S.A. No.1049 of 1992
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A female Hindu is possessed of property under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 where she has a legal right to possess it.

Yes. A female Hindu is possessed of property under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 where she has a legal right to possess it. The word “possessed” is used in a broad sense and in its widest connotation; it need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation but may be possession in law, actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law. Because the earlier alienations by the widows had been declared invalid, the right to claim possession revested in them and never became extinct, so on the commencement of the Act their limited rights blossomed into absolute rights.

Headnote

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.43 — Widow's limited estate — Possession in law — Reversioner — Recovery of possession — Declaration of title — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — "Possessed" — Possession in law is enough — Held: A female Hindu is possessed of property under s.14(1) where she has a legal right to possess it, actual physical possession being unnecessary; her limited estate thereupon blossoms into an absolute one. (¶25, 26) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Reversioner — Status extinguished by the Act — Held further: A person declared a reversioner before the Act cannot claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement, the claim of a presumptive reversioner being a mere chance of succession. (¶27, 33) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.43 — Estoppel operates against the transferor alone — Held further: The estoppel under s.43 applies only against the unauthorised person who makes the transfer, and cannot be applied against a plaintiff claiming on his own title. (¶31) Recovery of possession — Declaration of title — Maintainability — Held further: A suit simpliciter for recovery of possession is not maintainable without a declaration of title where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title. Second Appeal allowed. (¶32, 35)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25Then came the H.S. Act, whereof Section 14 (1) stipulates that a female Hindu becomes a full owner of any property possessed by her before or after the commencement of the H.S. Act. The term "possessed" gains significance in the context of the present case. While there are rival submissions on the question of the widows' possession of Suit 'B' schedule properties pursuant to Ex-A.3 - Judgment in S.A. No.1163 of 1950, Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4 - Sale Deeds recite that the widows were in possession of the Suit 'B' schedule properties and conveyed the same for a valid consideration. The plaintiff did not produce any contra evidence to show that the Suit 'B' schedule properties were in possession of the earlier alienees i.e., the persons described as alienees in O.S. No.320 of 1946. Moreover, the widows need not be in actual possession thereof, as the term "possessed" means possession in law and is broad enough to accommodate within its scope their legal right to possess, provided they have not departed with the same [See V.Sampathkumari's Case [cited supra] relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3]. In this regard, reference shall be made to Mulla's Hindu Law [25th Edition, Lexis Nexis Publication, relevant Page No.1253]. Relevant portion reads thus: " [§ 14.9] "Possessed" — Meaning of The word “possessed” is used in this section in a broad sense and in its widest connotation and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Kotturuswami v Veerava Jagannathan Pillai’s case above it means “the state of owning or having in one’s hand or power”. It need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation of the property by the female but may be possession in law. It may either be actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law. Thus, for instance the possession of a licensee, lessee or a mortgagee from the female owner would be her possession for the purpose of this section. Such also would be the case where a person is in possession as an agent of the female owner and is accountable to her. Life interest coupled with possession given to a female Hindu of properties managed by her husband, would confer absolute ownership on her and she would thus be full owner. … … … It is thus evident that for a widow to be “possessed” of property on the commencement of this Act, she must be in possession of such a property either actual, physical or constructive. If, however, such widow has parted with her rights to the property by way of a gift or any devise which has the effect of extinction of her rights to the property before the commencement of this Act, the widow not being "possessed" of the property on the date when the Act came into force, such widow would have no title to the property whatsoever and cannot thus avail the beneficial provisions of this section. …"
Paragraph 26In view of the finding in the earlier Suit proceedings that the sales made by the widows are invalid, automatically the widows became vested with the right to possession of Suit 'B' schedule properties. They could have at any point of time claimed possession over the Suit 'B' schedule properties. Their right to claim possession over the Suit 'B' schedule properties did not become extinct in any manner. Consequently, for the purpose of Section 14 (1) of the H.S. Act, the widows were possessed of the Suit 'B' schedule properties, and therefore, upon the commencement of the H.S. Act, their limited rights over Suit 'B' schedule properties blossomed into absolute rights under Section 14 (1). Consequently, they became entitled to dispose of the Suit 'B' schedule properties as per their desire and as such, they executed Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4 - Sale Deeds in favour of defendants 2, 7, 9 and 10, which are valid and binding on the plaintiff herein. In fact, the recitals in Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4 - Sale Deeds would also show that the widows disposed of the Suit 'B' schedule properties claiming it to be their absolute properties.
Acts & Sections
s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.43 Transfer of Property Act, 1882

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of VEERAMUTHU NAICKER v. RANGARAJU NAIDU(DECSD.,) — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a person declared a reversioner before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement?Does the estoppel under s.43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply only against the unauthorised person who makes the transfer?Is a suit simpliciter for recovery of possession maintainable without a declaration of title where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections