DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SESSION (2018-2023)

1|Page
SUBJECT: Family law - 2

TOPIC: Case analysis of Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde & Ors vs Chhabubai Balwantrao
Shinde & Ors.

UNDER SUPERVISION OF:

SUBMITTED BY
Radhakrishna garu C.H Rahul

Assistant Professor (Law) 3rd Semester

B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)

ROLL NO- 18LLB023

2|Page
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

I would like to use this opportunity to extend my heartiest gratitude to all the people who have
helped me develop this project.

First and foremost, I would like to thank our teacher Radhakrishna garu, who has been
constantly supporting me, guiding me and helping me with all queries and difficulties regarding
this project since its fledging stage. Without her enthusiasm, inspiration and efforts to explain
even the toughest of jargons in the most lucid manner, the successful inception of this project
would have been a Herculean task. 

I know that despite my sincerest efforts some discrepancies might have crept in, I hope and
believe that I would be pardoned for the same.

Thanking You

C.H Rahul

3|Page
 SYNOPSIS

Case analysis of Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde & Ors vs Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde &
Ors AIR 2003 SC 160

Petitioner: Gulabrao Balwant Shinde & Ors

Respondent: Chahabubai Balwantrao Shinde & Ors

Bench: V. N. Khare, Ashok Bhan.

ACTS: Section 14 of Hindu succession act 1956

Head note:

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14--Property acquired in lieu of maintenance by female to
enlarge into full ownership--But no pleadings and evidence that property given to female by way
of maintenance--Hence, finding of High Court that respondent C had become absolute owner
clearly erroneous and set aside--Further properties being ancestral lands in which plaintiff No. 1
had right by birth--Hence, entire property could not have been given to C by way of maintenance

Cases cited: petitioner

1. Khambatta v. Khambatta1

2. Shahulameedu v. Subaida Beevi, MANU/KE/0059/1971

3. Yusuf Rawthan v. Sowramma: AIR1971Ker261

4. Mohammad Haneefa v. Puthuman Beevi 1972 Ker LT 512

Cases cited: Respondent

5. Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali AIR 1989 Sc 1930

6. Rakeya Bibi v. Anil Kumar Mukherjee ILR 1948 Cal 119

7. Bibi v. Subodh chandra Chakrabariti. ILR (1945) Cal 405 : AIR 1949 Cal 436

8. Skinner v. Skinner ILR (1897) Cal 53

1
AIR1935Bom5

4|Page
Facts: The dispute was between the children of two widows. The deceased had remarried after
the death of the first wife. Children of the first wife filed a suit for recovery of half share of the
property left by their father whereas the children of first wife filed a suit for the recovery of half
share of the property left by their father.

Issues raised:

1. Whether this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit?

2. Whether the property given to a woman under section 14 of Hindu succession act can be
considered as transfer of entire property?

`Petitioner’s contention:

Counsel for the appellants argued that in the absence of any pleadings and evidence to the effect
that the Balwantrao Shinde had given the property to Chhabubai in lieu of maintenance, the High
Court has erred in recording a finding that the property in possession of Chhabubai was in lieu of
maintenance which could be enlarged into full ownership rights on her.
5|Page
Respondent’s contention:

Counsel for the respondents virtually conceded that Chhabubai did not either raise the plea or
lead any evidence to prove that the properties were given to her by way of maintenance by
Balwantrao Shinde.

Lower court Judgement:

After appreciating all the evidence on record both oral and documentary the trial court came to
the decision that both parties has the equal right in ownership of the property.

H.C upturned the judgment of trial court and came to the decision that second wife has complete
ownership of the property.

Supreme court Judgement:

S.C restored the judgement of trial court.

6|Page
Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde & Ors vs Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde & Ors

Petitioner: Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde & Ors

Respondent: Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde & Ors

Citation: AIR 2003 SC 16

Bench: V. N. Khare, Ashok Bhan.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N.A. Mody and S.H. Karim, Advs.

For Respondents/Defendant: Suresh Parekh, Nanavati and Y.E. Mooman, Advs

Acts: Section 14 of Hindu succession act 1956

FACTS

One Balwantrao Shinde (who died on 27th June, 1954) owned two suit properties, namely, Gat
No. 441 (Survey No. 204 admeasuring 2 Hectors 27 Ares at Tarsod, Taluku and District Jalgaon,
Maharashtra and Gram Panchayat House No. 2 and 26 at Tarsod, Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Maharashtra. Balwantrao Shinde married Anjanabai who died in the year 1940. After her death
he married Chhabubai. Plaintiffs-appellants are the children from Anjanabai whereas the
respondents are Chhabubai and her children. Appellants filed the suit for recovery of half share
of the property left by Balwantrao Shinde whereas respondents claimed ownership of the entire
property.

Issues raised:

1. Balwantrao the husband of Chhabubai (Appellant herein Orig. deft. No. 1) had died in the
year 1954 before the Hindu Succession Act had come into force. The Appellant No. 1
was in possession of the suit property even before the Hindu Succession Act come into
the force but after the Hindu Succession Act the original defendant No. 1 became the
absolute owner of the suit property which in her actual possession, as per Section 14 of
the Hindu Succession Act. Even if it is taken for granted that after the death of
Balwantrao in 1954, original defendant No. 1 come in possession of the suit property as

7|Page
 an alienated owner, her ownership rights had become absolute after the Hindu Succession
Act had come into force. Hence the respondents are not entitled to claim any share in the
suit property?

2. Did the Lower Appellate Court have jurisdiction to give relief other than relief sought by
the plaintiff because the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition i.e. for only half of portion,
of the suit property, therefore, could the District Court have passed an Order that plaintiff
became the absolute owner of the entire suit property?"

Lower Court Judgement:

Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-
appellants to the extent of 11/24th share of the suit property leaving the remaining
13/24th share to the respondents. Respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal. The
appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents held that the
plaintiffs-appellants were owners to the extent of entire suit property left by Balwantrao
Shinde. High court held that Chhabubai possessed the property left by Balwantrao
Shinde in lieu of maintenance and after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act
her right was enlarged to full ownership. It was held that the appellate Court could not
grant decree for the entire property in favour of the appellants as the appellants
themselves had claimed half portion of the property by way of partition. The judgments
of the courts below were accordingly set aside and the suit filed by the appellants was
ordered to be dismissed. The defendants were held to be the owners in possession of the
entire property.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

1. Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in the absence of any pleadings and
evidence to the effect that the Balwantrao Shinde had given the property to Chhabubai in
lieu of maintenance, the High Court has erred in recording a finding that the property in
possession of Chhabubai was in lieu of maintenance which could be enlarged into full
ownership rights on her.

8|Page
 2.

RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION:

1. Counsel for the respondents virtually conceded that Chhabubai did not either raise the
plea or lead any evidence to prove that the properties were given to her by way of
maintenance by Balwantrao Shinde. It is also not disputed that properties in the hands of
Balwantrao Shinde were ancestral in nature.
2. We agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any
pleadings to the effect that Balwantrao Shinde had given the properties to Chhabubai by
way of maintenance and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the finding that the
properties were given in lieu of maintenance to Chhabubai which right could be enlarged
into full ownership right could not be recorded.

JUDGEMENT

According to Section 14 of Hindu succession act 1956

Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.—

(1) 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.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance
or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after
her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other
manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the
commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or
under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award
where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a
restricted estate in such property.

Immovable property acquired by a female Hindu. The property may be of the following
description as property acquired:

9|Page
1. By inheritance or device; or

2. By a partition; or

3. In lieu of maintenance or arrears of inheritance; or

4. By a gift from any person whether a relative or not, before at or after her marriage; or

5. By her own skill or exertion; or

6. By purchase or by prescription; or

7. In any other manner whatsoever and

8. also, any property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

This section explicitly declares the law that a female holds all property in her possession whether
acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act as an absolute owner and not as a
limited owner.

The rule applies to all property movable and immovable howsoever and whenever acquired by
her, but subject to the qualification mentioned in Subsection (2).

Section 14 of the Act confers absolute ownership on a female Hindu i.e., the widow of the last
male holder in respect of all properties left by a male Hindu which was in her or their possession
on the date of the commencement of this Act, even though the husband or the male Hindu had
died long before the commencement of the Act. Thus Section 14 of the Act is retrospective in
effect. Under Section 14 the estate taken by a Hindu female under that provision is an absolute
one and is not defeasible under any circumstances.

The ambit of that estate cannot be cut by any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law.

According to S 14(2), the owner of a property is competent to confer a limited estate in favour of
any Hindu female voluntarily and such limited estate would not mature into an absolute one. The
reason is that the owner has a liberty to make a disposition of the property in accordance with his
wishes. However, where even under a will, the property was given to the Hindu female in lieu of
her pre-existing maintenance rights, such property notwithstanding the fact that it was
bequeathed to her as a limited estate, would mature into an absolute ownership.

10 | P a g e
According to sub-section (2) the female Hindu does not become 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 or instrument, decree, order or award gives her only restricted right.

The High Court was clearly fell in error in recording a finding to the effect that Chhabubai had
become absolute owner of the properties left by Balwantrao Shinde. Another factor which
persuades us to take this view is that the properties were ancestral hands of Balwantrao Shinde in
which plaintiff No. 1 had a right by birth. The entire property therefore could not have been
given to Chhabubai by way of maintenance. The high court was wrong in holding that property in
her possession became her absolute property. Moreover, the property in the hands of the
deceased being ancestral, entire property could not have been given to the wife by way of
maintenance.

 The judgment of the High Court is set aside to the extent indicated above and the decree passed
by the Trial Court is restored. The suit shall stand decreed in terms of the decree passed by the
Trial Court. Parties shall bear their own costs.

11 | P a g e