Is a Hindu widow's limited interest under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, once she remains in possession?

Paragraph 13The decisions on the point are to the effect that a Hindu widow, stepping into her husband’s shoes, holds the properties by satisfying the requirement of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. Even assuming the Defendants have failed to prove the factum of the oral partition pleaded by them, the necessary corollary in law under the Act, 1937, read with Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, remains intact and unaffected. The consistent view of this Court is to recognise the right of a Hindu widow as blossoming into an absolute right, except in cases that fall under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1956. Kashibai held her husband’s interest subject to the restrictions of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937. Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 takes away the effect of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937.

Paragraph 15The Appellants distinguish by contending that Kashibai cannot be said to have enjoyed a right under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937. This argument has been canvassed to overcome the binding precedents on the point. Section 3(2) confers on the widow, on the principle of devolution and subject to the limitation in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1937, the right of her husband. This may be termed a confirmation by the Legislature of a right for a person to obtain the property of another on the latter’s death in certain circumstances. It is not that the property will devolve on another only by survivorship or inheritance; it can also be through an Act of the Legislature. In the first instance, Kashibai has a right under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1937. Similarly, by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, Kashibai becomes an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of the prepositus Gangaram. The partition between the Plaintiff and Kashibai, as is well settled, is not a sine qua non for continuing to enjoy the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by the prepositus. Even assuming, without deciding the said argument, that a partition has not occurred in the undivided property, the shares in the coparcenary are subject to fluctuation but not to denial of a right.