- (1.)Major General Gurbux Singh and his wife Gulwant Kaur were estranged and were living apart. Their son and daughter-in-law were living with Gulwant Kaur at Chandigarh. Gulwant Kaur was apparently complaining that Major General Gurbux Singh was not providing her with adequate maintenance. Therefore, on July 28, 1958, he wrote her a letter, the relevant parts of which are as follows
"To,

Shrimati Gulwant Kaur,

You have been complaining that I have not paid even a penny for maintenance for the last seven/eight months. Here is an account from November 1957 to July, 1958, the details of which run as under :

x x x x x x x x x x

Now, so far as the question of future expenses is concerned, the maintenance shall be like this :

For Yourself;

1. The land and house situated at Mangwal, which was constructed with the earning of my whole life is entrusted to you, the half portion of which already stands in your name and in lieu of the produce thereof Madanjit shall provide to you, if not more, free lodging and boarding (expenses for maintenance). You stay in your own home.

2. The land at Khurana is also entrusted to you. Its produce, lease money, etc. will fetch you a minimum of Rs. 1200/- annually i.e. Rs. 100/- per month for maintenance.

3. I shall pay Rs. 100/- every month for maintenance.

x x x x x x x x x x"

The letter of Gurbux Singh suggested that he was making adequate provision for meeting the expenses of Gulwant Kaur even at the cost of great inconvenience and discomfort to himself and so Gulwant Kaur was not entitled to complain. Gulwant Kaur apparently felt disgusted and frustrated at the tone of the letter and by her letter dated August 5, 1958, she queried if she was not to take maintenance from Gurbux Singh from who else was she to get any maintenance. She said that she was not demanding anything and made no claim on him and that everything including the land and Kothi belonged to him. The Khurana land also belonged to him. He might give her maintenance or not give her maintenance as he chose. She said that she was nothing more than a heap of dust and her life was not worth living. In another portion of the letter, she mentioned that the Khurana land had not yet been leased and that there had been some delay. Other correspondence passed between the parties which is not important for the present case. Later, after a few years, Gurbux Singh conceived the idea of selling the Khurana land. The wife protested. Her letter dated January 15, 1966 was as follows :-

"Most respected husband.

Sat Siri Akal,

Previously in the summer, Col. Gurcharan Singh told us that you want to sell the land of Khurana. Now, on the day you visited Sangrur, it was learnt from you that you were interested in selling the land. I also told you that we depend upon only that. This land was given to me by you voluntarily. You had written letters to me and Madanjit on July 28, 1958 copy whereof is being sent to you by me. Therein, it was decided that I would continue enjoying the produce thereof till my life. Now, on hearing that you want to sell it, I was very much shocked ................ Now this letter is being written to you in order to impress upon you not to sell the land of Khurana because Madanjit and I depend upon it. You are very well aware that we do not possess anything else ............. I fully hope that you will continue giving me this land and the maintenance grants to me as per your decision and will not think of selling this land. You are aware how we are hardly maintaining ourselves. I have made this prayer to you. I have full right over it. I hope that you will reply soon."

Gulwant Kaur's letter did not have any effect on Major General Gurbux Singh. Instead of replying her, he sold the Khurana land to the plaintiff-respondent on June 18, 1968. The purchaser instituted the present suit out of which the appeal arises for an injunction restraining Gulwant Kaur and Madanjit Singh from interfering with their possession. The defendants contested the suit initially on the ground that the land had been gifted to Gulwant Kaur orally by Major General Gurbux Singh. It was also claimed that Gulwant Kaur had acquired title by adverse possession. Later the written statement was amended and a further plea was taken that the land in dispute had been given to Gulwant Kaur in lieu of maintenance and that she had become the absolute owner of the land under S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. All the courts found that there was no oral gift. A learned single Judge of the High Court who heard the second appeal held that the Khurana land was given to Gulwant Kaur by her husband Major General Gurbux Singh in lieu of maintenance and that by virtue of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she had become full owner of the property. On an appeal under the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that Gulwant Kaur was merely allowed to receive the proceeds of the land in dispute in order to meet her day-to-day expenses and that she did not at all acquire any such right or interest in the property as could be termed 'limited ownership' so as to permit her to take the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 14(l) of the Hindu Succession Act. According to the learned Judges. "If the General had given over the land in dispute completely to the lady then the question of sending more money could not have arisen ......... The reading of the letter leaves no manner of doubt that there was never any intention on the part of the General to give away the land of Village Khurana to the lady and that instead of sending the total amount in cash, the General allowed her to utilise the amount of ckakota for meeting her day-to-day expenses." The Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge.

(2.)We are unable to agree with the conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court. The question was not whether Major General Gurbux Singh intended to give away the Khurana land absolutely to Gulwant Kaur but whether the land was given to her in lieu of maintenance. A perusal of the letter dated July 28, 1958 from Major General Gurbux Singh to Gulwant Kaur and the letter dated January 15, 1966 clearly establish that the Khurana land was given to Gulwant Kaur by Gurbux Singh in lieu of her maintenance. We are unable to understand the distinction made by the High Court between day-to-day expenses and maintenance. It was argued by Shri Tarkunde, learned counsel for the respondents that even if the land was given to Gulwant Kaur in lieu of maintenance, it must be established that what was given to her was a limited estate in the sense of ownership without the right of alienation and that under Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act only such a limited estate would blossom into an absolute estate. We are unable to agree with the submission of Sri Tarkunde. Shri Tarkunde invited our attention to some decisions of this court as supporting the proposition stated by him. We will presently refer to all of them.
2-A. Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is as follows :

"(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".

(3.)It is obvious that Sec. 14 is aimed at removing restrictions or limitations on the right to a female Hindu to enjoy, as a full owner, property possessed by her so long as her possession is traceable to a lawful origin, that is to say, if she has a vestige of a title. It makes no difference whether the property is acquired by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever. The explanation expressly refers to property acquired in lieu of maintenance and we do not see what further title the widow is required to establish before she can claim full ownership under Sec. 14(l) in respect of property given to her and possessed by her in lieu of maintenance. The very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 is in the nature of an exception to Sec. 14(1) and provides for a situation where property is acquired by a female Hindu under a written instrument or a decree of court and not where such acquisition is traceable to any antecedent right.