Limited Estate of Unmarried Granddaughter Can Become Absolute

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. Ajit Inder Singh v. Mr. Simranjit Singh Grewal & Ors. (2025) held that the duty to maintain an unmarried minor daughter of a pre-deceased son may constitute a "pre-existing right" capable of enlarging her limited estate into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956(HSA).  

What was the Background of Mrs. Ajit Inder Singh v. Mr. Simranjit Singh Grewal & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case involved a partition suit relating to property at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 
• The suit was instituted by a 79-year-old unmarried woman, daughter of a pre-deceased son of the original owner, seeking partition of the property. 
• The plaintiff woman was given a life-interest in the suit property through a 1956 gift deed executed by her grandfather, late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh. 
• At the time of execution of the gift deed in 1956, the plaintiff was an unmarried minor, and her father had predeceased her grandfather. 
• The suit property was gifted jointly to the plaintiff and the surviving sons of the original owner. 
• The defendants, descendants of the other two surviving sons of the original owner, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the partition suit. 
• The defendants contended that the woman held only a life estate under the 1956 gift deed and that her interest could not enlarge into absolute ownership due to the restrictive terms of the gift. 
• The defendants argued that the plaint should be rejected for not disclosing a cause of action. 
• The defendants also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that classical Hindu law recognizes a continuing familial obligation to protect and maintain women which does not lapse with the death of the primary guardian but devolves upon the nearest relatives. 
• Referring to a Hindi shloka from Yājñavalkya Smṛti (Verse 1.85), the Court said the dictum encapsulates an elementary principle of classical Hindu law, namely the duty to protect and maintain a woman. 
• The Court stated that the principle ordains the duty of protection of woman upon the father during minority, upon the husband after marriage and in later years, upon the sons. 
• The Court held that if the plaintiff woman had any pre-existing right in recognition of which she was given a life-interest in the suit property, her share would be her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 
• The Court observed that under Hindu law, the grandfather, being the nearest agnatic relation, could be morally bound to maintain the unmarried minor daughter of his pre-deceased son. 
• The Court stated that once the property is gifted jointly to such a dependent and other heirs, the obligation to maintain her could legally devolve upon the co-sharers. 
• The Court observed that late Mr. R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh was the nearest agnatic relation and at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it cannot be conclusively held that there could be no moral obligation at all to maintain such a dependant. 
• The judge referred to various decisions wherein it has been held that a moral obligation may, in certain contexts, ripen into a legal obligation in the hands of those who take the estate. 
• The Court concluded that the plaintiff had a pre-existing right to maintenance traceable to the legal obligation of her paternal uncles to maintain her. 
• The Court added that the moral obligation may very well assume the character of a legal obligation in certain cases and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected for not disclosing a cause of action on such a count. 
• Justice Kaurav rejected the plea that the suit was barred by limitation, holding that the right to seek declaration of title would arise only when the plaintiff's rights were first denied, which was claimed to have occurred in 2024. 
• The Court dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the partition suit. 

What is Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?  

About:  

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was passed by the Parliament of India as a national code for inheritance and succession of property. 
• The Act sought to simplify the myriad norms and traditions which traditionally governed property inheritance in India before its enactment. 
• The Act was amended in 2005 to further strengthen and clarify inheritance rights. 
• The primary goal was to create a unified, simplified legal framework for inheritance that would replace diverse customary practices and provide equal property rights regardless of gender. 
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gave women full equal rights of ownership of property as men. 

Section 14 of the Act:  

• Section 14 of HSA deals with the property of a female Hindu considers it as her absolute property. It states that -

(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. 

• In Chaudhary v. Ajudhia (2003), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that it is immaterial as to how the female acquired the property and if she possesses any property, the property is considered as her absolute property.