STRIDHAN AND WOMENS ESTATE (SECTION 14)

In ancient times, the property rights of women were suppressed to a large extent. According
to Manu, a son, a wife and a slave do not have property rights and if they acquire any
property by their own, then that property will belong to the male under whose protection they
are living. The daughter’s right to inherit was also disputed as she was entitled to inherit only
if she was a ‘putrika’, meaning brother-less girl. It was only because of the efforts of some
social reformers that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was enacted in the year
1937[i]. Under the said Act, the ideology of all the schools of Hindu Law was amended in a
way so as to give greater rights to the Hindu women.

This Act brought about revolutionary changes by affecting not only the law of coparcenary
but also the law of alienation, inheritance, partition and adoption. It enabled a widow to take
an equal share to that of her son but disentitled her from becoming a coparcener and
therefore, the widows had only a limited estate in the property of her deceased husband with
the right to ask for partition. Although the object of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property
Act was to enlarge the property rights of all the Hindu women in general, it only satisfied
with strengthening the rights of widow and not the rights of women as a class. The position of
daughters right of inheritance was also left untouched as by the said Act of legislature.

After facing a lot of criticism on the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, the Parliament
decided to come up with an improved legislation dealing with the property rights of women
and enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 of HSA conferred absolute property
rights on women. 

What is Stridhan?

Under Hindu law, the property that can be held by a woman is divided into two categories,
i.e., Stridhan and Non-Stridhan. The word ‘Stridhan’ is constituted of two words namely,
‘stri’ meaning woman and ‘dhana’ meaning property. Stridhan is the property that is given to
a women at the time of her marriage. According to Mitakshara and Dayabhag, the following
in the hands of a women (maiden, married or widow) constituted Stridhan;

1. Gifts that are made before the nuptial fire.

2. Gifts that are made at the time of bridal procession.
 3. Gifts that are made by mother-in-law or father-in-law as a token of love at the time of
her marriage. And,
4. Gifts that are made by the mother, father and brother of the women

Women’s Estate and her rights over it

Yajnavalkya’s text has expanded the meaning of Stridhan to include all the properties that are
obtained by a woman by virtue of inheritance, partition, seizure, purchase and findings. But
the privy council did not accept the expansion prescribed by Yajnavalkya’s text and this has
resulted in the emergence of the concept of Women’s estate.

The following are the two categories which are considered as woman’s estate:

(i) Property obtained by inheritance – Under the Bombay School, a property that is
inherited by a female from another female also comes within the ambit of Stridhan.
Therefore, according to this concept, everything that is voluntarily given by someone to a
female will be her Stridhan.

(ii) Share obtained on partition – On partition a female is entitled to obtain her fair share in
the property but she undertakes it only as a limited owner as her rights are subject to two
limitations, i.e.;

 She cannot alienate the corpus in the ordinary manner, and

 After her death, her property will be entrusted to the next heir of the last full owner.

These limitations were also pointed out by the privy council in Janki v. Narayansami, where
it was held that although the position of a women with respect to her property is that of an
owner, she cannot dispose it off on her whims and fancies as she has only limited power over
the disposal of such property. It further held that these limitations on the ownership of women
are imposed in order to benefit the person who has interest in the property of the women after
her death, i.e. her son, her daughter or even her husband.

SOURCES OF WOMEN’S ESTATE

The following types of properties will constitute a women’s estate:

(i) Proper received in lieu of Partition: Under Section 14 of the HSA, any property that a
Hindu female gets in lieu of partition after the commencement of the Act will be her absolute
property and the property that she got in lieu of partition before the commencement of the
Act will also be her absolute property, provided that it was in her possession during that time.

In Chinnappa Govinda v. Vallaimmal, the father-in-law died after giving some property to
her widowed daughter-in-law under a maintenance deed for the purpose of her maintenance.
At the time of partition of coparcenary propety, the daughter-in-law asked for her share for
maintenance but the other family refused to give her on the pretext that she has to include the
properties that were given to her in the maintenance deed in order to claim her share from the
coparcenary property. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the daughter in law and held
that she need not to surrender the properties that were held by her under the maintenance
deed as nowhere in the maintenance deed the father has mentioned to do so.

(ii) Property given under an Award or Decree: The Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v.
Kanso Devi  held that although a woman’s share may be limited estate in the decree or
award, a property obtained by her in a partition is her absolute property under Section 14(1)
of HSA. The judges were of the opinion that Section 14 of the HSA has to be read as a whole
and not in part because they seem more complementing when read together than individually.
Also, whether a property belongs to subsection (1) or (2) depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.

(iii) Property under an agreement or compromise: The distinction between Sections 14(1)

and 14(2) was laid down in Mahadeo v. Bansraji and also in Lakshmichand v.
Sukhdevi.  The courts laid down certain tests for the determination of distinction between the
both and held that if the decree or award is the recognition of a pre-existing right, then
Section 14(1) will apply and it the property is given under an award to the female for the first
time, then Section 14(2) will apply.

(iv) Property received in inheritance: According to Section 14 of HSA, any property that is

inherited by a Hindu female from any of her relations after the commencement of the Act,
will be her absolute property and after her the death, the property will devolve upon her heirs
in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. Even if the woman has inherited the
property before the commencement of the Act, if it is in her possession then no one can
devoid her of that property and it will be her absolute property.

(v) Property received in Gift: The Hindu Succession Act has not made any distinction
between the gifts that are received from the relatives of the woman and those which are
received from strangers, therefore, all the gift that she receives becomes her absolute
property. In Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, the Punjab High Court went a step
further and held all the traditional presents that are made to a woman at the time of her
marriage will constitute her Stridhan, including the dowry too.

(vi) Property received under a will: In the case of Karmi v. Amru, a Hindu male conferred
his life estate on his wife Nihali under a registered will, with a direction that after the death of
his wife, the property will devolve upon his two collaterals namely Bhagtu and Amru. The
wife died in the year 1996 and the collaterals took the possession of the property and the
court held that the said possession is valid as a property received by a woman under a will is
her absolute property.

Women’s power over her estate

A woman has the following powers over her estate:

(i) Power of Management – The power of women over her estate is slightly superior to that
of Karta as due to the presence of other coparceners, the Karta is merely a co-owner of the
joint family propert, but the woman is sole owner of her property. She is solely entitled to the
possession, maintenance and income from her estate. She also has the power to spend the
income at his own discretion that is generated from her estate, and if she saves that income,
then it will be her Stridhan. Only she can be sue on behalf of her estate and be sue in respect
of it and no one else. The woman continues to be the owner of her estate, until forfeiture by
re-marriage, surrender, adoption or death.

(ii) Power of Alienation – A woman has limited rights of alienation over her property and
she can alienate only in exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional circumstances being
legal necessity, benefit of estate or the discharge of any indispensable duty.

(iii) Surrender – Surrender means renunciation of estate by the female owner[xv]. Surrender
may be done voluntarily by the woman during her lifetime or automatically by her death. The
woman has the power of renouncing her estate in favour of her nearest heir and the self-
effacement on her part will operate as her civil death.

There are some preconditions that need to be fulfilled for a valid surrender, viz. the surrender
must be of the entire estate (she may retain a small portion for her maintenance), the
surrender must be in favour of her nearest heir or the heirs of the last owner (such heirs are
termed as “reversioners”) and the surrender must be made with a bonafide intention (not as a
device of dividing the estate among with the reversioners).

After such surrender, the property will delve upon the reversioners. These reversioners also
have the right to prevent the female owner from using the property wastefully or improperly
alienating it.

Judicial trend towards women’s estate and Stridhan

The judicial view regarding women’s has also changed after the enactment of the HSA as
previously, in Bhugwandee Doobey v. Myna Baee, the privy council held that a property that
is acquired by a woman from her husband is not her Stridhan and on the death of that woman,
such property will devolve upon the heirs of her husband and not her heirs.

Also in Sheo Shankar v. Devi, the privy council held that a property which obtained by a
daughter from her mother will be the Stridhan of the mother and not the Stridhan of daughter,
and on the death of her mother, such property will devolve upon the heirs of the mother and
not her heirs.

But after the commencement of the HSA, the judicial attitude towards women’s estate and
stridan has also changed as the Supreme Court in the case of Gangamma v. G.
Nagarathnamma and Ors., has affirmed that the amplitude of Section 14(1) is very large and
it includes within its ambit every kind of property that has been possessed by a Hindu female
on of the date of commencement of the HSA.

Further in Santosh v. Saarswathibai, the ambit of Section 14(1) of HSA was expanded to
include not only the land which is in the possession of the Hindu female, but also the land
over which she has the right to possess.

To add to the rights of women, the Supreme Court in Cherotte Sugathan v. Cherotte
Bharathi, has held that on the death of the husband, his share of ancestral property will
devolve upon his wife and will not be subjected to disinvestment, except any statutory reason.
It was also held that the mere remarriage of the wife will not disentitle her from receiving her
deceased husband’s property.

Conclusion
The enactment of the Hindu Succession Act is a welcome step in strengthening the property
rights of Hindu women. Due to this Act, the women are being provided those rights which
have been denied to them for centuries. It is indeed a colossus step towards the protection of
women’s right as it has removed a woman’s disability to acquire and hold a property as its
absolute owner.

Earlier, a woman’s power to dispose of her property was also limited as if the nature of the
property is a Saudayika but her right to dispose it off is like that of a Non-Saudayika,
meaning she cannot dispose it off without the consent of the husband[xxii]. But all these
limitations that were prescribed by the archaic laws were removed by the enactment of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The HSA has prescribed that a woman will be absolute owner
of her Stridhan (including both movable and immovable property), regardless of whether it
has been obtained before or after the commencement of the Act and if she dies intestate, then
a uniform succession order shall be followed in such case.

JAGANNATHAN PILLAI V. KUNJITHAPADAM PILLAI, from dukki

In which the scope of Section 14(1) was considerably enlarged. The court observed that “the
expression “possessed” has been used in the sense of having a right to the property or control
over the property.

The expression any property possessed by a Hindu female whether acquired before or after
the commencement of the Act” on an analysis yields to the following interpretation: (1) Any
property possessed by Hindu female acquired before the commencement of the Act will be
held by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. (2) Any property possessed by
a Hindu female acquired after the commencement of the Act will be held as a full owner
thereof and not as a limited owner.

Possession, physical or constructive or in a legal sense on the date of coming into operation
of the Act is not the sine qua non for the acquisition of full ownership in property. In fact, the
intention of the legislature was to do away with the concept of limited ownership in respect of
the property owned by a Hindu female altogether.

In the above case a widow before the commencement of the Act inherited certain property of
which she was a limited owner. She disposed of that property through a registered sale deed
before the Act came into force. After the commencement of the Act the transferee again
transferred the same property to the widow for consideration.
The Court held that she became absolute owner of the property. She has regained possession
of the property subsequent to the commencement of the Act upon the retransfer of the very
same property to her by the transferee in whose favour she had transferred it prior to the
commencement of the Act; she would become its ‘absolute owner’.

V. TULSAMMA V. V. SHESHA REDDY (EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC.

14(1) AND RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC 14 (2)

GUMPHA v. JAIBAI
RESTRICTED PROPERTY UNDER A WILL COVERED BY SECTION 14(2)