In Brief
In this succession case, the Supreme Court held that a widow cannot acquire absolute ownership of property merely because she possesses it, if her rights stem from a court compromise decree rather than a pre-existing entitlement. Smt. Chhimli, widow of Sheo Lal, held limited possessory rights granted by a 1932 compromise decree. When she inherited these rights upon her husband's death, she took no better interest than he had. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956—which enlarges a widow's estate to absolute ownership—does not apply here because her interest was not pre-existing and was not held as maintenance or maintenance arrears. Therefore, the property reverted to the original heirs after her death."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.