The entire coparcenary property could not be given in maintenance to the widow.

In the absence of any pleadings indicating that Balwant Rao Shinde had given the properties to Chhabu Bai as maintenance, and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the finding that the properties were given in lieu of maintenance to Chhabu Bai-whose right could be enlarged into full ownership-could not be recorded. The High Court clearly erred in recording a finding that Chhabu Bai had become the absolute owner of the property left by Balwant Rao Shinde.

Another factor that persuaded the Apex Court to adopt this view is that the properties were ancestral in the hands of Balwant Rao Shinde, in which the plaintiff had a right by birth. Therefore, the entire property could not have been given to Chhabu Bai as maintenance.

The widow had not divested herself of the title to the suit property as a result of the mutation. The assumption by the courts below that the widow divested herself of the title due to the mutation was incorrect. Legally, she was in possession on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force, and as a full owner, she had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired.

Under the will, no right had vested in any of the daughters. The property in question was given to Ramamma in lieu of her maintenance during her lifetime, and it is only after Ramamma's death that any surviving rights would have vested in the daughters. However, due to the intervening factor, namely, the enactment of Section 14 of the 1956 Act, the daughters were deprived of their legal right to claim a share in the property. By virtue of this enactment, Ramamma's right was enlarged into an absolute estate, making her the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, reliance on Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act is misplaced.

Case References:

• Al Singh v. Dile Ram, 1988 (1) U.J. (S.C.) 216 at pp. 218 & 219.
• Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, 1988 (1) P.L.R. 182 at p. 189 (S.C.).
• Ant Singh v. Daulat Singh, 1997 (2) H.L.R. 279 at p. 283 (S.C.); J.T. 1997 (5) S.C. 703; 1997 (4) Scale 388.
• Scale 356: 2002 (6) S.L.T. 488; 2002 (10) S.L.T. 443.