Hindu Women Rights to Property Act, 1937
Section 3(3)- A Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can maintain a suit for partition:-
If a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest is not allowed to pray for partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds, then she would be deprived of enjoying her such right, as in the absence of partition by metes and bounds, she would not be able to enjoy her life interest therein. And if it is held that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest would not be able to file a suit for partition, then the other co-sharers of the joint properties may use such decision as lever against such Hindu woman and thus create obstructions in the enjoyment of her life interest in the joint properties. Therefore, we find no substance in the point that plaintiff No.1 not being a co- sharer in the suit khatain and having life interest only could not maintain the suit for partition. And we hold that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can very much maintain a suit for partition for the fullest enjoyment of her such right in the joint properties......Md. Abdus Sattar Miah -VS- Sreemati Raman Sona Dashya & others, [1 LM (AD) 220]
Editors’ Note:
One Rabindra Kumar Dey was the owner and possessor of 4.81 decimals of land. He died in 1978 leaving behind his wife, two sons and four daughters. One of his sons, namely, Prodip died and the other son Probir converted to Islam before Rabindra’s wife Arati Bala Dey filed the instant suit for partition claiming saham. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff died and Rabindra’s unmarried daughter Shipra Rani was substituted as plaintiff. Question arose as per Daya Bhaga school of law whether the plaintiff Arati Bala Dey inherited from her deceased husband; whether the substituted plaintiff Sipra Rani Dey is entitled to inherit from her deceased father and mother; and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition as prayed for? The High Court Division analyzing the relevant laws, particularly, the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act 1937, Caste Disability Removal Act, 1850 and the Bangladesh Laws (Revision and Declaration) Act, 1973 held that when a Hindu governed by the Daya Bagha School of Hindu Law dies intestate leaving any property, his widow becomes complete owner and co-sharer of the property during her life time and she is entitled to be in the same position as a son in the matter of claiming partition. The Court further held that after conversion to the faith of Islam son Probir has lost his right to his father’s property and, as such, the substituted plaintiff Sipra Rani Dey, the unmarried daughter of Rabindra Kumar Dey, is entitled to get the property on partition.
Section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937: Let us now consider whether a Hindu widow is entitled to get the same share as a son. In this connection reference may be made to section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 (XVIII of 1937). Sub section (1) of section 3 of the said Act says that when a Hindu governed by the Daya Bagha School of Hindu Law dies intestate leaving any property dies, his widow, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section(3), be entitled to the same share as a sons. Sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act further says that any interest devolving on a Hindu widow shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman’s estate, but she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. Further sub-section (2) of section 1 of the said Act stipulates that it extends to the whole of Bangladesh. Thus from reading of the aforesaid provisions of sub[1]sections (1) and (3) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 it is clear that the widow during the period of her life time she became complete owner and co-sharer of the property and this sub-section 3(3) has the effect of putting the widow in the same position as a son in the matter of claiming partition. (Para 18 and 19)
Hindu law does not apply where a person enters into a religious order renouncing all worldly affairs, his action is tantamount to Civil death, and it excludes him altogether from inheritance and from a share on partition. (Para 22)
It is pertinent to note that Hindu law is religious law, the right to property is made by that law dependent upon the observance of the tenants of that faith. Consequently, a lapse from orthodox practices of Hinduism would under that law entail forfeiture of the caste and all rights to property and inheritance. Renouncement of religion has a disability, but after the passing of the Caste Disability Removal Act, 1850 (Act XXI of 1950), change of religion is no ground of exclusion of inheritance. But after the repealing of the Act XXI of 1850 by the Bangladesh Laws (Revision and Declaration Act, 1973 (Act No. VIII of 1973) the persons converts into another religion are now forfeited from the inheritance and from the joint family property and fathers property. (Para 22) [17 SCOB [2023] HCD 154]
