Explain Hindu Women’s estate. Explain its nature and special features.

Explain Hindu Women’s estate. Explain its nature and special features. Or Examine the right to the property of a Hindu female under S.14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Or What is the extent of the right under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of a Hindu female to own and alienate immovable property?

Ans. Hindu Women’s Estate–The Hindu woman’s limited estate has now been abolished by S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Now every property in possession of female whether acquired before or after the commencement of that Act, except acquired under a gift, will, award, document or decree of court stipulating otherwise, is her absolute property. S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, is retrospective in nature. Now the relevance of the women’s estate is therefore only to property acquired or possessed by a female under a will, gift, award, document or decree of court prescribing a limited estate, or a woman’s estate. Under the old Hindu law women’s estate were of two types–!. Stridhan, of which she was the absolute owner; 2. Women’s estate, over which she has limited ownership. Sources of Property-There are two sources by which a Hindu female may possess the property—(i) Property inherited by females from a male. (ii) Property inherited by females from a female. Nature of Property so Inherited-According to Bengal, Banaras, Mithila and Madras Schools every female who succeeded as an heir whether to a male or female, took a limited estate in the property inherited by her, and on her death the property passed not to her heirs, but to the next trill owner. Meaning and Nature of Women’s Estate—The term “Women’s Estate” in its larger connotation means all property which has come to a woman oy any means and from any source whatsoever, and includes both property in which she has absolute interest (Stridhana) and property in which she has only a limited interest. The term ‘woman’s estate’ is used here only in the latter sense of property in which she takes only a Uinited or qualified interest. A widow or limited heir was not a tenant for life but was owner of the property inherited by her, subject to certain restrictions on alienation and subject to its devolving upon the next heir of the last full owner upon her death. The Privy Council has stated thus–“Her right is of the nature of right of property; her position is that of owner; her powers in that character are, however, limited : but. so long as she is alive no one has vested interest in the succession.” Incidents of Women’s Estate-The main incidents of woman’s estate are as under— 1. A Hindu Woman was’the owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband, but except under the following conditions, she could neither sell the property nor could she mortgage it nor could she alienate it (a) For legal necessity; (b) For the benefit to the estate; (c) With the consent of the next reversioners; (d) For religious and charitable purposes. 2. She absolutely represented the estate, she could institute a suit herself relating to the estate and could defend it Decrees paced against the estate were not only binding upon her but also against the reversioners. 3. She could also institute a suit against third persons for possession of the estate, but if she had allowed the adverse possession of third persons, then the reversionerswere not bound by such adverse possessions. 4. She had the rights over the estate as a prudent owner; being the owners of the properties acquired as limited owner, she was entitled to administer the property as a reasonable person and she had the power to exercise her rights over the property liberally as that of the Karta of the joint Hindu family. 5. The restrictions upon the right of disposition of the estate were neither qualified nor dependant upon the existence or non-existence of the reversioners: 6. She could alienate her .life interest in the setate through mortgage, sale or gift. 7. She could spend the whole income; she was not bound to share the income. 8. She could claim partition from the col laterals. 9. She was not under the control of her relatives. 10. Her right over the estate came to an end upon remarriage or on adoftfion of a child. 11. She could not transform the woman’s estate into some other form so as to change its nature either by some declaration or by some act. Right of Disposition—Any woman (widow) who was a limited property could not dispose of the estate except for the following purposes–(i) Legal necessity; (ii) Religious purposes, and (iii) Benefit of the estate. Limited owner could not alienate the movable or immovable property by will. (i) Legal Necessity–A widow can dispose of the property acquired from her husband for necessity, however, the necessity maybe religious or worldly. However, her right is wider with respect to religious purposes than the worldly purposes. She had to prove the necessity for worldly purposes with strict proofs and force. She can dispose of the property for wordly necessities in the same manner and circumstances as it is done by the managers of minor’s property or by Karta. The most important feature of the disposition is the necessity and benefit. Hence any disposition shall be valid if it falls within the ambit of reasonable necessity. Any disposition shall continue to be valid, if once the legal necessity has been established by the benefactory of the property and this fact will have no relevance that the necessity arose due to the bad condition of the widow. (ii) Religious Pruposes– The religious purpose includes —1. The performance of the obsequial ceremonies of the deceased owner and payment of his debts. 2. Performance of . such religious ceremonies which were supported to conduce the spiritual benefit and welfare of the deceased and others. 3. Journey to Gaya for the obsequial ceremonies of the deceased husband. 4. Pilgrimage (Teerth Yatra) to Setubandh. 5. Dinner at Gaya, gifts to Pujari there, and gift to the Pirohit of the family. 6. Obsequial gift at the time of immoral acts, gifts for Ponds or for construction of the temples. (iii) Benefit of Estate–The tranctions made in order to up keep, depend, retorn and maintain the property came under the head benefit of the state. For Example—The acquisition of property in the interest of family, To mortgage a commercial house in order to purchase a residential Jiquse, To mortgage the house with intent to renovate family house and To sell that property which is difficult to manage and giving a very low income etc. Effects of alienation made without legal necessity and without the consent of reversioners—Any disposition of the property by a limited owner (widow) shall not be binding upon the next reversioner if the disposition is without the consent-of reversioners or without any legal necessity. However such disposition shall not altogether be void, rather it shall be voidable at the option of the reversioners. This option can be pither before they acquire possession or afterwards. When the reversioners consent to the alienation in totality or partially, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, such alienation shall be deemed to have been made in legal necessity and will be binding on all. Right of a Hindu female under Hindu Succession Act, 1956—S. 14 clearly says that the property possessed by a female Hindu on the date the Act came into force whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof. That provision makes a clear departure from the old Hindu Law texts or rules. S.14 is retrospective in so far as it enlarges a Hindu woman’s limited estate into an absolute estate even with regard to property inherited or held by her as limited owner at the time when the Act came into force. But the section have no application to the properties of female Hindu which he had inherited before the Act came into force and had already alienated absolutely before the Act, for she cannot be deemed to be the owner of the property, of which she made an absolute alienation and was not in possession at the date of the commencement of the Act. The section applies only to properties “possessed by” the female at the date of the commencement of the Act. The expression “any property possessed by a female Hindu” in S.14 means “any property owned by a female Hindu” at the date of the commencement of the Act, and, these words are prospective in their application. Any property “acquired before” the commencement of the Act shall be the absolute property. The expression “whether acquired before or after thfe. commencement of this Act” shows that section is operative retrospectively. For Example —A Hindu widow who was in possession of lands belonging to her deceased husband in 1917 but which was illegally dispossessed by the collaterals of her husband in 1954 brought a suit for possession. During the pendency of the suit the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force and subsequently in 1958 the widow died and her legal representative was brought on record. It was held that the land was possessed by the plaintiff when she died in 1958 within the meaning of S. 14(1) and therefore her legal representative must be deemed to have succeeded to those rights. The court laid down that word `acquired’in sub-section ( I) has to be given the widest possible meaning. This would be so because of jthe language of the Explanation which makes sub-Section (1) application of property in manners mentioned therein. Restricted Estate—S.14(2)— The rule that the property howsoever acquired by a female Hindu shall be Her absolute property stated in Cl. (I) is subject to the provision of Cl. (2). According to this Cl. (2) the woman does not become the absolute owner of the property acquired by gift, will or any other instrument, decree or order of a Civil Court or an award if such gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award gives her only restricted right. The purpose and legislative intention which surfaces from a combined reading of Sub-sections (I) and (2) of S.14 is that it attempts to remove the disability which Was imposed by the customary Hindu law on acquistion of rights by a female Hindu but it does, not enlarge the right which she gets under a will etc. giving her a limited estate. The Punjab High Court has held that a female who is possessed of, under gift made by a limited owner prior to the enforcement ofAct, does not become full owner after the enforcement of the Act. It follows, therefore, that the conferring of the restricted right on female by such instrument must be expressly mentioned. In the absence of such express intention, the woman shall hold it as the absolute owner.