# SUKHRAM & ANOTHER v. GAURI SHANKAR & ANR

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 476
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-09-11
- **Case number:** ; Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. c. SHAH, § M. S!Kri, J. M. Shelat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sukhram-another-v-gauri-shankar-anr-4122
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, s. 14(1)-Coparcenary uoverned B:
b11 Benares Schoo! of Mitakshara rule that male coparcener cannot
alienate his share of property without assent of other. caparcenersWhether applicable to widow's interest under s. 14(1).
The first appellant, his brother H and his son the
second appellant, constituted a Hindu Joint family and were governed by the
Mitakshara law of the Benares School. H died in 1952 leaving him
surviving his widow. On December 15, 1956, the widow sold a half c
share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint family to the first
respondent. The appellants filed a suit for a decree declaring that the
sale by the widow was without consideration and for 811 order cancelling the sale deed. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and.
in appeal, by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court it was contended ·on behalf of the appellants that under the Benares School of the Mitabhara, a male copar- D
cener is not entitled to alienate even for value, his undivided interest
in coparcenary property without the consent' cif the other coparceners
except in certain specified cases, and by s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956 it could not have been intended to confer a larger
right on the \vidovo- of a coparcener,
HELD: On the death of her husband, the widow became entitled
to the same foterest which H had in the joint family property under &
s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 18 of 1937, in the
joint family property. Of that interest, b)• virtue of s.14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act 1956, she became full owner on June 17, 1956
and being full owner she was competent lo sell it for her own purpose without the consent of the m.ale coparceners of her husband.
[477D-G]
A male member of a Hindu family governed by the Benares F
School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly subject to restrictions
qua
alienation of his interest in the joint family property. but a w;dow
acquiring an interest in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not
a ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has not
chosen to impose. [478F]
Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, L.R. 17 I.A. 194: Balgobind G
Das v. Narain La! and Ors, L.R. 20 I.A. 116 and Chandradeo Singh &
Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. I.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.); referred to.

## Text

476
SUKHRAM & ANOTHER
v.
GAURI SHANKAR & ANR.
September 11, 1967.
[J. c. SHAH,§ M. S!KRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ .)
Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, s. 14(1)-Coparcenary uoverned B:
b11 Benares Schoo! of Mitakshara rule that male coparcener cannot
alienate his share of property without assent of other. caparcenersWhether applicable to widow's interest under s. 14(1).
The first appellant, his brother H and his son the
second appellant, constituted a Hindu Joint family and were governed by the
Mitakshara law of the Benares School. H died in 1952 leaving him
surviving his widow. On December 15, 1956, the widow sold a half c
share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint family to the first
respondent. The appellants filed a suit for a decree declaring that the
sale by the widow was without consideration and for 811 order cancelling the sale deed. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and.
in appeal, by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court it was contended ·on behalf of the appellants that under the Benares School of the Mitabhara, a male copar- D
cener is not entitled to alienate even for value, his undivided interest
in coparcenary property without the consent' cif the other coparceners
except in certain specified cases, and by s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956 it could not have been intended to confer a larger
right on the \vidovo- of a coparcener,
HELD: On the death of her husband, the widow became entitled
to the same foterest which H had in the joint family property under &
s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 18 of 1937, in the
joint family property. Of that interest, b)• virtue of s.14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act 1956, she became full owner on June 17, 1956
and being full owner she was competent lo sell it for her own purpose without the consent of the m.ale coparceners of her husband.
[477D-G]
A male member of a Hindu family governed by the Benares F
School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly subject to restrictions
qua
alienation of his interest in the joint family property. but a w;dow
acquiring an interest in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not
a ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has not
chosen to impose. [478F]
Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, L.R. 17 I.A. 194: Balgobind G
Das v. Narain La! and Ors, L.R. 20 I.A. 116 and Chandradeo Singh &
Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. I.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.); referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
March 15, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 2434 of 1960.
H
N.C. Chatterjee, E. C. Agarwala, Kartar Singh and P.C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
J. P. Goyal and B. P. 1'1a. for the respondents.
Sl'KllRAM V GAl RI SH.IXKAI: (Sh(llt, J,)
477
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Hukam Singh and Sukhram-the lirst appellant in
this appeal-were two brothers. Chidda-the second appellant, is
the son of Sukhram, Hukam Singh, Sukhram and Chidda constituted a Hindu joint family and were governed by the Mitakshara
Law of the Benares School. Hukam Singh died in 1952 leaving
B him surviving his wife Kishan Devi. On December 15, 1956, Kishan
Devi sold a half share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint
family, to Gauri Shankar. Sukhram and his son Chidda then commenced an action in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad for a
decree declaring that the sale by Kishan Devi to Gauri Shankar
was without consicferation, and for an order cancelling the sale
0 deed. The suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the
District Court, Meerut, and the High Court of Allahabad.
In this appeal the only question which falls to be determined
is whether the sale deed executed by Kishan Devi was binding
upon the cor-11rceners of her husband. On the death of Hukam Singh
in 1952, it is common ground Kishan Devi acquired by virtue of
D s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 18 of 1937,
the same interest in the property of the joint family which Hukam
Singh had. That interest was limited interest known as the 'Hindu
Woman's estate': s. 3(3) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property
Act, 1937. The Parliament enacted The Hindu Succession Act 30
E
of 1956, which by s. 14(1) provided that-
"Any property possessed by a female
Hindu, whether
acquired before or after the commencement of this Act,
shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a
limited owner."
The ·plea raised in the District Court that Kishan Devi was not
F "possessed" of the property which she sold to Gauri Shankar was re
jected, and has not been set up before us. Clearly therefore, on the
express words of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, Kishan Devi
acquired on June 17, 1956, rights of full ownership in the interest
which Hukam Singh had in the property of the family during his
life time, and she was competent without the consent of the male
G members of the family to sell the property for her own purposes.
But Mr. Chatterjee for the appellants submits that under the ,
Benares School of the Mitakshara a male coparcener is not entitled to alienate even for value his undivided interest in coparcenary
property without the consent of the other coparceners, unless the
alienation be for legal necessity, or if the coparcener is the father,
B for payment by him of his antecedent debts which are not illegal or
avvavaharika, and it could not have been intended by Parliament
to confer upon a widow in a Hindu family a larger right than the
right which the surviving coparceners could exercise at the date of
the sale by the widow. Counsel says that the Parliament by Act 30
4i8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] I S.C.R.
of 1956 merely intended to confer upon a Hindu widow rights of A
full ownership in the interest in property in which she had prior to
that Act, only a limited interest, but did not intend to destroy th~
essential character of joint family property so as to invest the
widow with power to alienate that interest without the assent of
the coparceners of her husband.
It is true that under the Benares school of the Mitakshara a B
caparcener may not, without the consent of the other coparceuers,
sell his undivided share in the family estate for his own benefit:
Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh('); Balgobind Das v. Narain Lal
and Ors.(') and Chandradeo Singh & Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr.(')
But the words of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act are express and
explicit; thereby a female Hindu possessed of property whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act holds it as full O
owner and not as a limited owner. The interest to which Kishan
Devi became entitled on the death of her husband under s. 3(2) of
the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, in the property
of the joint family is indisputably her "property" within the meaning of s. 14 of Act 30 of 1956, and when she became "full owner"
of that property she acquired a right unlimited in point of user and D
duration and uninhibited in point of disposition.
We are unable to agree with Mr. Chatterjee that restrictions
on the right of the male members of a Hindu joint family form the
bed-rock on which the law relating to joint family property under
the Hindu Law is founded. Under the Law of the Mitakshara as
administered in the territory governed by the Maharashtra and the E
Madras Schools and even in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu
coparcener is competent to alienate for value his undivided interest
in the entire joint family property or any specific property without
the assent of his coparceners. A male member of a Hindu family
governed by the Benaras School \lf Hindu Law is undoubtedly
subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in the joint p
family property but a widow acquiring an interest in that
property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act is not subject to any
such restrictions. That is however not a ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has not chosen to impose.
On the death of her husband, Kishan Devi became entitled to
the same interest which Hukam Singh had in the joint family pro- G
perty. Of that interest, she became full owner on June 17. 1956 .. and
being full owner she was competent to sell that interest for her own
purposes. without the consent of the male coparceners of her husband.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
(') L.R. 17 I.A. 194.
(') L.R. 20 I.A. 116.
(') l.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.).
Appeal dismissefi,