What Delhi High Court held on Hindu woman's right over life estate left by husband

The Delhi High Court recently said that a Hindu woman, who may have received a life estate from her husband, can enjoy the income from it throughout her life but does not have absolute rights over the property after his death [Manmohan Singh & Anr vs Shital Singh & Ors]..Justice Prathiba M Singh said that a wife receiving such property of her husband who may die before her, is an essential safeguard for her financial status during her lifetime as it ensures that she does not remain dependent on her children after her husband’s death. “Under such circumstances, the wife has complete rights to enjoy the property during her lifetime. She can also enjoy the income from the said property throughout her life," the Court said. However, it cannot be held that the entire property should be construed as maintenance giving the wife absolute rights over the property, after the death of her husband, the Court made it clear..The Court made the observations in a property dispute case in which the trial court had held that by virtue of a will dated January 14, 1989, the wife of the testator (one who has made the will) had become absolute owner of a property devolved as life estate to her.The case originated from a civil suit filed by the testator’s three sons and one daughter against their three siblings and a granddaughter. It was argued that their mother by virtue of the will only had limited rights over the property and after her death, it should devolve as per the will itself..The trial court had dismissed the suit and ruled that the subject property should devolve according to her successorship and not as per the will. It had said the mother had absolute ownership of the property.The High Court considered the question of whether the devolution was as maintenance for the wife (mother of contesting parties) or as a bequest under the will. At the outset, it noted that the wife did not have right to sell, alienate and transfer the property as per the will but could have enjoyed other rights like right to recover rent and lease it out..It also noted that the wife of the testator had not executed any will during the lifetime and thus she obviously had no contrary intention to what her husband had expressed in it.“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 also 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,” the Court stated. It further said that an interpretation that she had absolute rights would be contrary to the spirit of Hindu Succession Act. It explained that she acquired rights solely under the Will.“She had the right to enjoy the income generated from the subject property during her lifetime, and this cannot be considered an absolute interest,” the Court said while setting aside the trial court order. .Advocate Jagdish Kumar Solanki represented the petitioners.Advocates Raghav Anthwal with Charu Sharma and Jatin Mongia with Anatesh Banon represented the defendants.[Read Judgment]