Widow's Long Possession Transforms into Absolute Ownership Under Hindu Succession Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Gift Deeds

“Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act overrides all pre-existing Hindu law limitations — Hanumayamma's possession since 1941 matured into full ownership by 1956” —  In a significant reaffirmation of women's property rights under Hindu law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed Second Appeal, reinstating the trial court’s dismissal of a suit seeking recovery of ancestral property from donees of a widow who had executed gift deeds in 1983. The High Court held that Bellamkonda Hanumayamma, who possessed her deceased husband's and son’s estate since 1941, became absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and validly executed gift deeds in favour of her nieces, including Putti Seetharavamma and her sons.

The Court also held that the plaintiffs’ suit filed in 2001 — more than 12 years after Hanumayamma’s death in 1988 — was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and lacked any legal or factual basis to challenge possession or title of the donees. The judgment also resulted in the closure of Contempt Case No. 1067 of 2021, which was based on the now-invalidated decree of the First Appellate Court.

“Repealed Laws Cannot Revive — First Appellate Court Committed Patent Error by Applying Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937”

The Court sharply criticised the First Appellate Court for reversing the trial court judgment on the basis of the repealed Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, which was rendered inapplicable after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao observed:

“The First Appellate Court committed a patent error by applying the repealed statute, which is prohibited under Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Act of 1956 extinguishes all notions of limited estate, and creates a statutory transformation of the female Hindu’s interest into full ownership.”

The Court emphasized that the repeal of Section 31 of the Hindu Succession Act by the 1960 amendment does not revive the old statute. It stressed that the widow’s estate doctrine no longer survives, and all rights possessed by a Hindu woman, irrespective of their origin, become absolute after 1956.

“Possession Since 1941, Gift Deeds in 1983, No Legal Challenge for 18 Years — Suit is Hopelessly Barred”

Addressing the limitation issue, the High Court noted that even as per plaintiffs’ own pleadings, Hanumayamma held possession of the suit properties from 1941 till her death, and the gift deeds (Exs. B-9, B-16 to B-19) were executed and accepted in 1983.

The Court found that the plaintiffs (respondents in appeal) were aware of these deeds, mutation entries, and even mortgages by the donees. Despite this, they filed suit only in 2001, a clear violation of the 12-year period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

“The registered gift deeds were executed in 1983, and the donees’ possession was recognized by revenue records. The plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted knowledge of this. The suit, filed after 18 years, is hopelessly barred by limitation.”

Further, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs never challenged the validity of the gift deeds and failed to provide any documentary evidence of their title or possession.

“Burden Lies on Plaintiff — Cannot Rely on Defendant’s Weakness”

Reiterating the settled principle of civil law, the Court held that the plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title, not on the weakness of the defendants’ case.

“In a declaratory and possessory suit, the burden always lies on the plaintiffs to make out a clear case. Admittedly, they did not even apply for pattadar passbooks or pay land revenue. They failed to prove either possession or ownership.”

The Court drew support from Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Ananthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, and several judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, confirming that mere denial or allegation of forgery is insufficient unless positive evidence is adduced.

“Hanumayamma’s Estate Enlarged to Full Ownership by Law — Gift Deeds Valid and Binding”

In a key finding on succession and property law, the Court ruled that Hanumayamma’s possession for more than four decades transformed her limited estate into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

“She possessed the property from 1941 onwards, and by 1956, became full owner under the law. The gift deeds she executed in 1983 are legally valid and fully enforceable.”

The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that the properties should revert to the male branch of the family, noting that once absolute ownership is vested, no question of reversion arises, especially when succession opened after 1956.

The judgment clarified that the doctrine of reversioners is extinguished under the modern Hindu succession law.

“Contempt Petition Collapses After Appeals Succeed — No Undertaking Violated, No Injunction Proved”

The connected Contempt Case No. 1067 of 2021 was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the appellants violated an interim undertaking by altering the C-schedule property during the pendency of the second appeal.

However, the Court held that no injunction or binding undertaking was ever given by the alleged contemnors, and in any case, the foundation of the contempt — the appellate decree — stood reversed.

“Since the decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside, there is no executable decree. There is no order restraining construction, and no undertaking by the contemnors. The contempt petition stands closed.”

This judgment decisively affirms the transformative effect of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on women’s property rights, holding that possession — even if acquired as a limited owner under older laws — matures into absolute ownership after the Act’s commencement. The Court has reinforced that reliance on repealed laws is legally untenable, and delay and inaction by plaintiffs in challenging registered instruments will bar their claims under the Limitation Act.

Further, it restated the core civil law principle that plaintiffs must prove their own title and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defendants’ case. The well-reasoned ruling not only restores trial court findings but also clarifies several grey areas of Hindu succession jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025