Whether Tulasamma has the right to alienate the property after the passing of the Hindu Sucession Act , 1956 , even after the terms of the compromise state otherwise?
Whether the instrument of compromise under which the properties were given to the appellant Tulasamma before the 1956 Act in lieu of maintenance falls within Section 14(1) or is covered by Section 14(2) of the 1956 Act: and
Whether a Hindu widow has a right to property in lieu of her maintenance, and if such a right is conferred on her subsequently by way of maintenance it would amount to mere recognition of a pre-existing right or a conferment of a new title so as to fall squarely within Section 14(2) of the 1956 Act.
Section 14 (1) of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 states that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. The explanation given with the sub-section says that In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
Section 14 (2) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property