In the case titled Manmohan Singh & Anr vs. Shital Singh & Ors., Justice Pratimbha M. Singh held that a widow doesn’t have absolute rights over a deceased husband’s self-acquired property.
The court held that a Hindu woman who doesn’t have any income can, although she enjoys the rights to the self-acquired property left behind by her dead husband, this doesn’t mean that she has absolute rights over the property. As the name implies, an absolute right is one that is irrefutable in all situations and cannot be restricted. This means that she can reside on that particular property during her lifetime, but she doesn’t have the right to sell or transfer the property.
THE ISSUE
The matter before the court was to decide whether a husband who predeceased his wife and has made a will, wherein he is giving his wife the right to enjoy the rights of the property until her death, and later in the will mentioned how that asset would devolve post her demise.
The details of this matter are as follows: a trial court adjourned a property dispute case wherein there was a dispute over the ownership of a property that was initially left as a life estate to the wife of the person who made the will. According to the will dated January 14, 1989, the wife was supposed to have limited rights over the property during her lifetime.
The testator’s three sons and one daughter filed a civil suit against their three siblings and a granddaughter, arguing that their mother (the wife) should only have limited rights to the property as stated in the will. They believed that after her death, the property should be distributed according to the terms of the will.
However, the trial court disagreed with the children’s interpretation of the will. It ruled that the wife had absolute ownership of the property, meaning she had full control and rights over it. Therefore, the property would be passed down according to the laws of succession rather than the specific instructions outlined in the will.
The question before the High Court is whether the devolution in question was meant as an inheritance according to the will or simply as financial support for the wife, who the mother of the parties in dispute is.
THE JUDGEMENT
The court initially held that the wife lacked the prerogative to sell or transfer the property in accordance with the terms outlined in the will. However, she retained certain entitlements, including the rights to collect rent and lease the property.
Moreover, the court underscored that since the wife did not execute a separate will during her lifetime, it inferred an absence of conflicting intentions with those articulated by her husband in his will.
The court finally held that “the will categorically states that the wife has no right to sell, alienate, or transfer the subject property. Given this position, to assert that upon the death of her husband she became the absolute owner of the subject property and could have sold or alienated the property would contradict the clear intent expressed in the will as well as the intention of the deceased mother clearly expressed through her conduct that she did not execute a will or sell the property during her lifetime.”
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands—who may predecease them—is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime,” concluded Justice Prathiba M Singh.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International
