Wife can't become absolute owner of property Willed for her lifetime, if maintenance taken care: SC
New Delhi, Feb 1: A Hindu male, owning self-acquired property executing a Will giving a limited estate to his wife, would not mature into an absolute right, if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh decided in the second round of litigation the ownership rights accrued half a century after testamentary disposition by a Will dated April 15, 1968, by one Haryana resident Tulsi Ram, who passed away on November 17, 1969.
In our view, the objective of sub-Section (2) is quite clear as enunciated repeatedly by this Court in various judicial pronouncements, i.e., there cannot be a fetter in an owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course, if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said (Hindu Succession) Act , the bench said, while setting aside the order of High Court.
It added that sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and this does inter alia apply to a Will, which may create an independent and new title in favour of females for the first time and is not a recognition of a pre-existing right .
The top court said that in such cases of a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act will not operate in that sphere.
The objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of. If we were to hold so, it would imply that if the wife is disinherited under the Will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of the intent of the testator , the bench said.
It said that the testator in the present case Tulsi Ram had taken all care of the needs of maintenance of his wife by ensuring that the revenue generated from the estate would go to her alone.
He, however, wished to give only a limited lift interest to her as the second wife with the son inheriting the complete estate after her lifetime. We are, thus, of the view that it would be the provisions of Section 14(2) of the said Act which would come into play in such a scenario and Ram Devi only had a life interest in her favour , the bench said.
It said that people who have purchased land from the wife Ram Devi are in no better position than her and the sale deeds in favour of them cannot be sustained.
The bench said that there is no doubt that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is to give rights of a property to a Hindu female and was a progressive step and its sub-section (1) makes it clear that it applies to properties acquired before or after the commencement of the said Act.
Any property so possessed was to be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. The Explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act defines the meaning of property in this sub-section to include both movable and immovable property acquired by the female Hindu by inheritance or devise or a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by a gift from any person, or by her skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever, including stridhana , the bench said, adding that the explanation is quite expansive.
The Will bequeathed the Tulsi Ram's estate to his son, and his second wife Ram Devi (the first wife being deceased) under which land measuring 175 kanals and 9 marla, a residential house and a Bara in Village Jundla, Haryana was bequeathed half and half to them.
However, the nature of bequeathing was different for the two as the son was given absolute ownership rights to the extent of his share of land and property whereas the wife was given limited ownership for her enjoyment during her lifetime concerning her share of the land with a specific provision that she could not alienate, transfer or create third party rights over the same.
Tulsi Ram in his Will stated that the property was to vest absolutely in Son after the lifetime of his wife.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
