//
you're reading...
legal issues

Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad agricultural lands not included = The appellants contended that under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated, the Ist respondent being the widow of deceesed Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share in the joint family agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are excluded from the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. This contention has been negatived by the High Court. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the heirs of Veerappa.= It was submitted that prior to the enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women’s Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, the Hindu women’s Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952 would not apply to agricultural land. The High Court has rightly negatived this contention. A subsequent Act cannot be used to interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this fashion. The language of the earlier Act is wide enough to cover agricultural land also. In the entire Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, there is nothing which would indicate that the Act does not apply to agricultural land. The word ‘property’ is a general term which covers all kinds of property, including agricultural land. A restricted interpretation was given to thee original Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 enacted by the then Central Legislature, entirely because of the legislative entries in the Government of India Act, 1935, which excluded the legislative competence of the Central Legislature over agricultural lands. Such is not the case in respect of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property act, 1937, as enacted by the State Legislature of the State of Hyderabad. The ratio of the Federal Court judgment, therefore, would not apply. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the subsequent Act of 1954 restricted the application of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 brought into force by the earlier Hyderabad Act of 1952. As is pointed out by the High Court, the Act of 1954 was enacted by way of abundant caution, to make sure that the agricultural lands were not considered as excluded from the scope of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952. The second Act is, therefore, clarificatory. The High Court has dealt at length with various decisions of this Court and other Court on thee question of interpretation of the said statute. Since we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court, we are not again examining the cases referred to by the High Court. We, therefore, affirm the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court and dismiss this appeal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=12909

PETITIONER:
VAIJANATH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
GURAMMA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1998

BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, & G.B. PATTANAIK.

 
ACT:

 

HEADNOTE:

 

JUDGMENT:
ORDER
The application to bring on record Respondent No.2
also as legal representative of deceased Respondent No. 1 is
allowed.
The Ist respondent was the widow of one Ramshetti who died
some time in July, 1954. The 2nd respondent is her
daughter. Ramshetti and his brother Veerappa, during their
life time constituted a joint family which owned, inter
aliea agricultural land. The present appellant are the
widow, sons and daughters of Veerappa.
On a partition of the joint family property which was
ordered in proceedings arising pursuant to regular Suit No.
88/78 for partition and possession, the Ist respondent as
widow of Ramshetti has been given a share in the
agricultural lands belonging to the joint family. The
appellants contended that under the Hindu Women’s Right to
Property Act as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad
where the lands were situated, the Ist respondent being the
widow of deceesed Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share in
the joint family agricultural lands. Agricultural lands are
excluded from the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Right to
Property Act, 1937. This contention has been negatived by
the High Court. Hence the present appeal has been filed by
the heirs of Veerappa.
On the date of death of Ramshetti in July, 1954, the
lands were situated in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad,
Under the Hyderabad (Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952
which received assent of the President on 22nd of July,
1953, certain Central Acts affecting Hindu and Muslim laws
were applied to the State of Hyderabad. One of the laws so
applied to the State of Hyderabad was the Hindu Women’s
right to Property Act, 1937.
Scheme 3 of the Hyderabad (Application of Central
Acts) Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad
Act of 1952, stated that Acts specified therein shall, with
effect from the appointed day, extend to and be in force in
the whole of the State of Hyderabad subject to the
modification mentioned in the Schedule and shall accordingly
be in force in the said State with effect from the said date
in the forma respectively specified in Annexures ‘A’, ‘B’,
‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ to the Schedule, in the Schedule to
the said Act the modification to the Hindu Women’s Right to
Property Act, 1937 is set out. The only modification is,
“For sub-section (2) of Section 1, the following sub-section
shall be substituted, it extends to the whole of the State
of Hyderabad, “Annexure C’ to the said Hyderabad Act of 1952
sets out the text of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property
Act, 1937 as modified by the aforesaid Schedule and
applicable in the State of Hyderabad. the entire text of
the Act remains the same with the modification of
sub-section (3) of the said Hindu Women’s Right to Property
Act, 1937 when a Hindu governed by any school other than
Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law or a customary law, dies
intestate having at the time of his death an interest in a
Hindu Joint Family Property, his widow shall have in the
property the same interest as he himself had, subject to
sub-section (3). Under sub-section (3) Under sub-section
(3) the interest devolving on a Hindu Woman’s Estate. There
is no definition of property under the Hindu Women’s Rights
to Property Act, 1937. Therefore, the term property has to
be given its ordinary meaning which would include
agricultural land also.
However, the appellants rely upon a decision of the
Federal Court in Re: Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act.
1937 AIR 1941 Federal Court page 72 under which the validity
of the said Original Act which had been enacted by the
Central Legislature was considered by the Federal Court,
Examining the question of legislative competence of the
Central Legislature to enact in 1937 the Hindu Women’s Right
to Property Act the Federal Court examined the legislative
entries under the Government of India Act, 1935. It held
that under Entry 21 of List II which applied to the
Provincial Legislatures, laws with respect to devolution of
agricultural land could be enacted only by the Provincial
Legislature. It also noted that in List III, that is to
say, the Concurrent List, Entry 7 was wills, intestacy and
succession save and except agricultural land’. The Federal
Court observe that while the Act purports to deal in quite
general terms with property’ or ‘separate property’ of a
Hindu dying intestate or his interest in joint family
property, it does not distinguish between agricultural land
and other property and. therefore, is not limited in terms
to the latter. However, looking to the completence of the
Central Legislature to enact such a law the word ‘property’
will have to be suitable construed. ‘When legislature with
limited and restricted powers makes use of such a word of
such a wide and general import, the presumption must surely
be that it is using it with reference to that kind or
property with respect to which it is competent to legislate
and to no other. The Federal Court, therefore, restricted
the application of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act,
1937 by excluding agricultural lands from its purview.
The same constraint do not apply to the said
Hyderabad Act of 1952 passed by thee legislature of the
State of Hyderabad, which has received the assent of the
President on 22nd of July, 1953. The relevant Legislative
entries under the Constitution of India are somewhat
different. Entry 5 in the Concurrent List, being List III in
the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, is as follows:
“Marriage and divorce; infants and minors;
adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint
family and partition; all matters in respect of
which parties in judicial proceedings were
immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution subject to their personal law.”
The is no exclusion of agricultural lands from Entry 5 which
covers wills, intestacy and succession as also joint family
and partition. Although Entry 6 of the Concurrent List
refers to transfer of property other than agricultural land,
agriculture as well as land including transfer and
alienation of agricultural land are placed under Entries 14
and 18 of the State List. Therefore, it is quite apparent
that the Legislature of the State of Hyderabad was competent
to enact a Legislation which dealt with intestacy and
succession relating to Joint Family Property including
agricultural land. The language of the Hindu Women’s Right
to Property Act, 1937 as enacted in the State of Hyderabad
is as general as the Original Act. The words ‘property’ as
well as ‘interest in Joint Family Property’ are wide enough
to cover agricultural lands also. Therefore, on an
interpretation of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act,
1937 as enacted by the State of Hyderabad, the Act covers
agricultural lands. As the Federal Court has noted in the
above judgment, the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act is a
remedial Act seeking to mitigate hardships of a widow
regarding inheritance under the Hindu Law prior to the
enactment of the 1937 Act; and it ought to receive a
beneficial interpretation. The beneficial interpretation in
the present context would clearly cover agricultural lands
under the word ‘property’. This Act also received the
assent of the President under Article 254(2) and, therefore,
it will prevail.
The appellants, however, rely upon a subsequent Act
passed by the State of Hyderabad, namely, Hyderabad Hindu
Women’s Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Land)
Act, 1954. Section 2 of the said Act provides that “term
‘property’ in the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act as in
force in the State of Hyderabad shall include agricultural
land. This Act received the assent of the President on 15th
October, 1954 and was published in the State Gazette dated
22nd of October, 1954. It was submitted that prior to the
enactment of the Hyderabad Hindu Women’s Right to Property
(Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, 1954, the Hindu
women’s Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952 would not
apply to agricultural land. The High Court has rightly
negatived this contention. A subsequent Act cannot be used
to interpret the provisions of an earlier enactment in this
fashion. The language of the earlier Act is wide enough to
cover agricultural land also. In the entire Hindu Women’s
Right to Property Act, 1937, there is nothing which would
indicate that the Act does not apply to agricultural land.
The word ‘property’ is a general term which covers all kinds
of property, including agricultural land. A restricted
interpretation was given to thee original Hindu Women’s
Right to Property Act, 1937 enacted by the then Central
Legislature, entirely because of the legislative entries in
the Government of India Act, 1935, which excluded the
legislative competence of the Central Legislature over
agricultural lands. Such is not the case in respect of the
Hindu Women’s Right to Property act, 1937, as enacted by the
State Legislature of the State of Hyderabad. The ratio of
the Federal Court judgment, therefore, would not apply.
There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the
subsequent Act of 1954 restricted the application of the
Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 brought into force
by the earlier Hyderabad Act of 1952. As is pointed out by
the High Court, the Act of 1954 was enacted by way of
abundant caution, to make sure that the agricultural lands
were not considered as excluded from the scope of the Hindu
Women’s Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952. The
second Act is, therefore, clarificatory.
The High Court has dealt at length with various decisions of
this Court and other Court on thee question of
interpretation of the said statute. Since we are in
agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by
the High Court, we are not again examining the cases
referred to by the High Court. We, therefore, affirm the
reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court and
dismiss this appeal. There will, however, be no order as to
costs.

 

 

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,611 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: