Streedhana (Stridhan) and Womans Estate

Streedhan, a voluntary practice, was considered part of the Vedic concept of kanyadan
and was the only wealth a woman could acquire from her parental home.
The word Stridhana is, derived from the words stri meaning woman and
"dhana "meaning property. Essentially a word and concept, which comes down
centuries from the Hindu smritis but has today, permeated all forms of marriages in all
castes and religions.
The existence of Stridhan is an ingrained part of Indian culture from times of yore. As
male dominated as the society may be, the existence of the custom of 'bride price'
indicates that women understood the importance of financial independence and
safeguarding their interests long before the feminist movement made it popular to do
so.
Mitakshara defines that stridhan means womans property. In the entire history of
Hindu Law, womans right to hold and dispose of property has been recognized.
The Dayabhaga School doesnt recognize gifts of immovable property by husband as
stridhan).
Under all the schools of Hindu Law payments made to a Hindu female in lump sum or
periodically for her maintenance and all the arrears of such maintenance constitute
stridhan. Similarly, all movable or immovable properties transferred to her by way of
an absolute gift in lieu of maintenance constitute her stridhan.
Kinds of Womans Property:
What is the character of property that is whether it is stridhan or womans estate,
depends on the source from which it has been obtained. They are:
Gifts and bequests from relations- Such gifts may be made to woman during
maidenhood, coverture or widowhood by her parents and their relations or by
the husband and his relation. Such gifts may be inter vivos or by will. The
Dayabhaga School doesnt recognize gifts of immovable property by husband
as stridhan.
Gifts and bequests from non-relations- Property received by way of gift inter
vivos or under a will of strangers that is, other than relations, to a woman,
during maidenhood or widowhood constitutes her stridhan. The same is the
position of gifts given to a woman by strangers before the nuptial fire or at the
bridal procession. Property given to a woman by a gift inter vivos or
bequeathed to her by her strangers during coverture is stridhan according to
Bombay, Benaras and Madras schools.

 Property acquired by self exertion, science and arts-A woman may acquire
property at any stage of her life by her own self exertion such as by manual
labour, by employment, by singing, dancing etc., or by any mechanical art.
According to all schools of Hindu Law, the property thus acquired during
widowhood or maidenhood is her stridhan. But, the property thus acquired
during coverture does not constitute her stridhan according to Mithila and
Bengal Schools, but according to the rest of the schools it is stridhan. During
husbands lifetime it is subject to his control.
Property purchased with the income of stridhan- In all schools of Hindu
Law it is a well settled law that the properties purchased with stridhan or with
the savings of stridhan as well as all accumulations and savings of the income
of stridhan, constitute stridhan.
Property purchased under a compromise- When a person acquires property
under a compromise; what estate he will take in it, depends upon the
compromise deed. In Hindu Law there is no presumption that a woman who
obtains property under a compromise takes it as a limited estate. Property
obtained by a woman under a compromise where under she gives up her rights,
will be her stridhan. When she obtains some property under a family
arrangement, whether she gets a stridhan or womans estate will depend upon
the terms of the family arrangement.
Property obtained by adverse possession- Any property acquired by a
woman at any stage of her life by adverse possession is her stridhan.
Property obtained in lieu of maintenance- Under all the schools of Hindu
Law payments made to a Hindu female in lump sum or periodically for her
maintenance and all the arrears of such maintenance constitute stridhan.
Similarly, all movable or immovable properties transferred to her by way of an
absolute gift in lieu of maintenance constitute her stridhan.
Property received in inheritance- A Hindu female may inherit property from
a male or a female; from her parents side or from husbands side. The
Mitakshara constituted all inherited property a stidhan, while the Privy Council
held such property as womans estate.
Property obtained on partition- When a partition takes place except in
Madras, fathers wife mother and grandmother take a share in the joint family
property. In the Mitakshara jurisdiction, including Bombay and the Dayabhaga
School it is an established view that the share obtained on partition is not
stridhan but womans estate.
Stridhan has all the characteristics of absolute ownership of property. The stridhan
being her absolute property, the female has full rights of its alienation. This means that
she can sell, gift, mortgage, lease, and exchange her property. This is entirely true
when she is a maiden or a widow. Some restrictions were recognised on her power of
alienation, if she were a married woman.
For a married woman stridhan falls under two heads:

 The sauadayika (gifts of love and affection)- gifts received by a woman from
relations on both sides (parents and husband).
The non-saudayika- all other types of stridhan such as gifts from stranger,
peoperty acquired by self-exertion or mechanical art.

Over the former she has full rights of disposal but over the latter she has no right of
alienation without the consent of her husband. The husband also had the power to use
it.
On her death all types of stridhan passed to her own heirs. In other words, she
constituted an independent stock of descent. In Janki v. Narayansami, the Privy
Council aptly observed, her right is of the nature of right of property, her position is
that of the owner, her powers in that character are, however limited So long as she
is alive, no one has vested interest in the succession.

Powers of a Hindu Female over her Property:

a) Power of Management- like the Karta of a Hindu joint family she has full
power of management. The Karta is merely a co-owner of the joint family,
there being other coparceners, but she is the sole owner. She alone is entitled to
the possession of the entire estate and its income. Her power of spending the
income is absolute. She need not save and if she saves, it will be her stridhan.
She alone can sue on behalf of the estate and she alone can be sued in respect
of it. Any alienation made by her proper or improper is valid and binding so
long as she lives. She continues to be its owner until the forfeiture of estate by
her re-marriage, adoption, death or surrender.
b) Power of Alienation- She has limited powers of alienation, Like Karta her
powers are limited and she can alienate property only in exceptional cases. She
can alienate the property for the following:
Legal necessity (that is, for her own need and for the need of the
dependants of the last owner)
For the benefit of estate, and
For the discharge of indispensable duties (such as marriage of daughters,
funeral rites of her husband, his shrada and gifts to brahmans for the
salvation of his soul; that is, she can alienate her estate for the spiritual
benefit of the last owner, but not for her own spiritual benefit.)
Under the first two heads her powers are more or less the same as that of the
Karta. Restrictions on her powers of alienation are an incident of the estate
and not for the benefit of the reversioners.

As to the power of alienation under the third head, a distinction is made

between the indispensable duties for which the entire property could be
alienated, and the pious and charitable purposes for which only small
portion of property can be alienated. She can make alienation for religious
acts, which are not essential or obligatory but are still pious observances
which conduce to the bliss of her deceased husbands soul.
c) Surrender- means renunciation of estate by the female owner. She has the
power of renouncing the estate in favour of the nearest reversioner. This means
that by a voluntary act she can accelerate the estate of the reversioner by
conveying absolutely the estate thereby destroying her own estate. This is an
act of self-effacement on her part and operates as her civil death. For a valid
surrender, the first condition is that it must be of the entire estate, though she
may retain a small portion of her maintenance. The second condition is that it
must be in favour of the nearest reversioner or reversioners, in case there are
more than one of the same category. Surrender can be made in favour of female
reversioners also. The third condition is that the surrender must be bonafide
and not a device of dividing the estate with the reversioners.
d) Reversioners- On the death of the female owner the estate reverts to the heir or
the heirs of the last owner as if the latter died when the limited estate ceased.
Such heirs may be male or female known as reversioners. So long as the estate
endures there are no reversioners though there is property of the female
devolves on the reversioners when her estate terminates on her death, but it can
terminate even during her lifetime by surrender.
e) Right of Reversioners- the reversioners have a right to prevent the female
owner from using the property wastefully or alienating it improperly. It is this
context that the expression presumptive reversioner came into vogue. The
reversioners have the following three rights:
They can sue the woman holder for an injunction to restrain waste.
They can in a representative capacity sue for a declaration that alienation
made by the widow is null and void and will not be binding on them after
the death of the widow. However by such a declaration the property does
not revert to the woman nor do the reversioners become entitled to it. The
alienee can still retain the property so long as the widow is alive.
They can after the death of the woman or after the termination of estate, if
earlier, file a suit for declaration that an alienation made by the widow was
improper and did not bind them. The Supreme Court observed that when a
Hindu female holder of womans estate improper makes alienation, the
reversioners are not bound to institute a declaratory suit during the lifetime
of the female holder. After the death of the woman, they can sue the alienee
for possession of the estate treating alienation as a nullity.

Conversion of womens Limited Estate into Absolute Property

The property rights of the Hindu women are highly fragmented on the basis of several
factors apart from those like religion and the geographical region. Property rights of
Hindu women also vary depending on the status of the woman in the family and her
marital status: whether the woman is a daughter, married or unmarried or deserted,
wife or widow or mother. It also depends on the kind of property one is looking at:
whether the property is hereditary/ ancestral or self-acquired, land or dwelling house
or matrimonial property. Prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Shastric and
customary laws that varied from region to region governed the Hindus.
Under the old Hindu law among all the properties that the women was in possession
of, only her stridhan was absolute property and in other inherited properties she was
entitled to only a life-estate with limited powers of alienation, if any and this position
further continued under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act,1937. However
the framers of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 intended to make major changes in the
area of the nature of the womens estate and this is reflected in S.14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956.
The section has the effect of:
Firstly, removing any disability in either statutory or customary law with
respect to power of alienation, title etc with respect to womens property after
the enactment of the Act.
Secondly the enactment retrospectively acts and converts any right, which the
women might have had in any estate, and converts her into an absolute owner.
Thirdly the action of the section is on both immovable and immovable
property.
Fourthly, the mode of acquisition of a right in the property (except in case of a
gifts/wills etc that specifically creates a restricted estate) is not relevant for the
operation of the section.
In this regard the reasoning of the judiciary is to be examined especially with respect
to how the courts have determined which properties held by the women would be
benefited by the section 14 and converted to absolute estates.
Section 14 applies only when a woman has title as well as de jure possession of the
property at the time of the commencement of the Act. The Courts have usually
interpreted the section, especially possessed liberally so as to give maximum
effect to the section and thereby benefit the widow.
For example, in Mangal Singh v. Smt. Rattno the nature of the right that a widow
possessed over some lands that were currently in actual possession of some collaterals

(of the deceased husband) was to be determined. The court drew attention to the fact
that section 14 of the Act spoke about any property possessed by a Hindu
female instead of any property in possession of a Hindu female. The former
would refer to instances when there is constructive possession while the latter would
refer to actual possession. The court took this to be a deliberate move on part of the
legislature and the widow was given absolute property rights over property in which
she had de jure possession despite lacking de facto possession.
The scope of the section has been tempered by decisions such
as Eramma v. Veerupana where in 1936 after the death of a coparcener one among
three widows (before the final decree) occupied her husbands property. It was held
that S.14 could not aid her because at the time she got possession she had no vestige
of ownership and had no position higher than a trespasser.
In general, however, landmark cases such as Jaganathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam
Pillai have attempted to enlarge the property of the widow by following a liberal
interpretation of the section. The facts of the case were that a widow who had
transferred property prior to the commencement of the Act, the property having
limited ownership, came into possession of the same upon retransfer of the property.
After commencement of the Act the Supreme Court held that she becomes absolute
owner of the property. The judgement also contained significant judicial dicta, which
was quite favourable to the property rights of females in general. (See also V.
Tulsamma vs V. Shesha Reddy, AIR 1977 SC 1944)
Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 has abolished certain womens estate
and in respect of womans estates which are outside the purview of section 14, a
reversioners right under old Hindu Law still endures.
Section 14(1) has qualified retrospective application; it converts only those womens
estates into full estates over which she has possession when the Act came into force. It
does not apply to those womans estates over which the Hindu female has no
possession when the Act came into force; in such a case old Hindu Law continues to
apply. Section 14(2) uses the words any other instrument. Applying the principle of
ejusdem generis, these words should be read along with the preceding words,
acquired by way of gift or under a will and would thus, mean the instruments under
which title to property has been conveyed to the Hindu female.

It is suggested to go through the class notes also.