November 7, 2024
DU LLBFamily law 2Semester 2

Atma Singh v. Gurmej KaurCIVIL APPEAL NO.11094 OF 2017

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court dated 14.07.2009 by which the High Court has dismissed the Regular

Second Appeal filed by the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and lie in a very narrow compass. The

appellant has filed Civil Suit No. 220 of 2001 for a declaration that the plaintiff is the

owner and in joint possession of the half share of the land owned by Pal

Singh son of deceased Narain Singh. Narain Singh had three sons namely AtmaSingh, the

appellant, Mohan Singh, respondent No.5 and Pal Singh. The defendant No.1, Gurmej

Kaur was the wife of Narain Singh. Narain Singh, who was the owner of land in dispute

died in the year 1952 intestate. He left behind his three sons and wife Gurmej

Kaur. Gurmej Kaur immediately after the death of Narain Singh remarried with one Inder

Singh. Pal Singh, son of Narain Singh died in the year 1972 intestate. He was

not married and so had no children. Estate of Pal Singh was mutated in favour of Gurmej Kaur,

his mother. Thereafter, Suit No. 220 of 2001 was filed by the appellant. The

Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that defendant No. 1, Gurmej Kaur being the

real mother of deceased Pal Singh and she being Class I heir shall succeed to Pal

Singh after his death. The appeal was filed by the appellant, which too was dismissed on

07.02.2006, against which a second appeal was filed. The High Court in its judgment

reaffirmed the decision of the Court below. The High Court held that although after death of

Narain Singh, Gurmej Kaur, on account of her remarriage will loose right in estate of

Narain Singh but have every right to inherit the estate of her son, Pal Singh in terms of

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiff appellant aggrieved by the

judgment of the High Court have come up in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contends that after remarriage,

GurmejKaur loses her right to inherit the property of Narain Singh as well as his

lineal descendants. Hence she was not entitled to inherit the estate of Pal Singh. It is submitted

that Courts below did not advert to The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, which clearly

disentitle the defendant No.1 to inherit the estate of Pal Singh. It is submitted that in the

year 1972 when Pal Singh died, the Hindu Window’s Remarriage Act, 1856 was in force

and defendant No.1 was not entitled to inherit the property of Narain Singh i.e. property of

father of the deceased but was entitled to inherit the estate of Pal Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the submission of the counsel for the

appellant and contended that the provisions of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 are

219

no longer applicable in view of the overriding effect given to the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 under Section 4 of the 1956 Act. He submits that the defendant

No.1 being the natural mother of Pal Singh has rightly been held to inherit his estate under the

1956 Act.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

6. The issue to be considered in the present appeal is as to whether the Hindu

Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 disentitles the defendant No.1 to inherit the estate of

Pal Singh. For answering the aforesaid issue, we need to examine the provisions of

the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856.

7. The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 was enacted to remove all legal

obstacles to the marriage of the Hindu Widows. The Act was enacted to render remarriage

valid to legalize the legitimacy of the children. It conferred a benefit on those who could not

marry but at the same time imposes a restriction on them. Section 2 of the Acton which reliance

have been placed is as follows:“2 Rights of widow in deceased husband’s property to

cease on her remarriage: All rights and interests which any widow may have in her

deceased husband’s property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or

to his lineal successors, or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring

upon her, without express permission to remarry, only a limited interest in such property,

with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as

if she had then died; and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons

entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.”

8. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted to amend and codify the law relating to

intestate succession among Hindus. Section 4 of the Act gave the enactment an overriding effect.

9. In the present case, we have to decide the right of inheritance of the estate, which

was left by Pal Singh, who died in the year 1972. Pal Singhdied intestate and succession is to be

governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

10. The mother being Class I heir under Section 8 and there being no other class I heir available

to succeed mother, she naturally succeeded the estate of Pal Singh by virtue of Section 8

read with the Schedule, Class I. Whether provision of Section 2 of the 1856 Act disentitles

the defendant No.1 to succeed the estate of Pal Singh, is the submission forcefully put up

by learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that on remarriage, the widow ceases

to have any right of maintenance or inheritance to her husband or his lineal successors. It

220

is submitted that Pal Singh being lineal successor of husband of defendant No.1, she is also

disentitled to succeed the estate of Pal Singh.

11. The consequence of Section 2 on the right of widow, who remarries has been

clearly enumerated. Section 2 provides that all rights and interests, which any widow

may have in her deceased husband’s property or to his lineal successors, shall upon her

remarriage cease and determine as if she had then died. Thus, on remarriage, the widow is

divested with any right which she may have in the husband’s property or property of husband’s

lineal successors. In the present case, remarriage took place in the year 1952. Thus, the widow

has lost any right in the property of her husband or any lineal descendants on

remarriage. Section 2 further provides that on cessation and determination of rights

of widow, the next heirs of her deceased husband or other persons entitled to the

property shall succeed the same. The effect of Section 2 was thus confined to rights which

the widow was possessing at the time of remarriage.

12. In the present case, the succession has opened in the year 1972 when Pal Singh died. The

question which had cropped up in the present case regarding succession of estate of Pal Singh and

succession of Pal Singh’s estate shall be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. By Section 8, the mother i.e. defendant No.1 being described in Class I of the

Schedule shall inherit the property excluding other heirs. Even after remarriage of

defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 shall continue to be the mother of Pal Singh, who was born to

her from her first husband Narain Singh. Succession under Section 8 to the estate of

Pal Singh by defendant No.1 shall not be controlled or prohibited by Section 2 of

the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856. It is true that all rights in her husband’s property

or property of lineal successors of her husband were lost by a widow on her

remarriage. But Section 2 shall not govern or regulate any future succession to which

she may be entitled under law. The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 has been

subsequently repealed by the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage (Repeal) Act. 1983. Even

though, in the year 1972, the 1856 Act was in force but as noted above, the said provision

shall not control the succession as ordained by Section 8 of the 1956 Act.

13. Coming to Section 4 of the 1956 Act, where an overriding effect has been given to the 1956

Act to any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the 1956

Act in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the 1956 Act.

Even for the argument’s sake, it is accepted that Section 2 of the 1856 Act has any

cascading effect on the right of widow, the same shall be treated to have

overridden by virtue of Section 8 read with Schedule to the 1956 Act.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of

this Court in Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others,

221

(1976) 4 SCC 674, this Court while considering the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

held that mother cannot be divested of her interest in her son’s property either on the

ground of unchastity or remarriage. One Madhua died in the year 1960 whose wife was Kasturi.

Kasturi remarried with one Lekhraj in the year 1963. Karua who was son of Madhua and Kasturi

died in the year of 1970. The question arose about the inheritance of property of Karua. The

claim of Kasturi, the appellant, was rejected by the High Court against which she

had filed the appeal. This Court has held that Kasturi could not have been divested of her right to

inherit the estate of her son. In paragraph 3 of the judgment following was held:

“3.We may now examine the contentions raised by counsel for the

appellant. Counsel submitted that assuming that Kasturi had remarried

Lekhraj she had acquired an absolute interest in the property and no

question of divestment of the property could arise in view of the

provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Secondly, it was argued that

Kasturi in the instant case put forward her claim for inheritance not as

widow of Madhua but as mother of Karua, because it was the property of Karua

which was in dispute. In the view that we take in the present

appeal, it is not necessary at all to decide as to whether or not Kasturi would

be disinherited or divested of the property even after having acquired an

absolute interest under the Hindu law. This is a moot question and

not free from difficulty. We will, however, assume for the sake of argument

that as wife of MadhuaKasturi might be divested of her interest on her

remarriage with Lekhraj. It is plain, however, in this case that the dispute

arises over the property of Karua and qua Karua’s property, Kasturi

claimed inheritance not as a widow of her husband Madhua but as the

mother of Karua. The Deputy Director of Consolidation seemed to

think that the bar of inheritance would apply to a mother as much as to a widow

and on this ground he refused to accept the claim of the appellant. Learned

counsel for the respondents supported the stand taken by the Deputy

Director of Consolidation. We are, however, unable to agree with the

view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which appears to be

contrary to the written text of the Hindu Law. Mulla in his Hindu

Law, 14th Edn. while describing the incidents of a mother regarding

inheritance under clause (iii) observed at p. 116 as follows:

“(iii) Unchastity and remarriage.—Unchastity of a mother is no bar to

hersucceeding as heir to her son, nor does remarriage constitute any such bar.” A

large number of authorities have been cited in support of this view. We

find ourselves entirely in agreement with this view. Our attention has not

been invited to any text of the Hindu Law under which a mother could

222

be divested of her interest in the property either on the ground of

unchastity or remarriage. We feel that the application of bar of inheritance

to the Hindu widow is based on the special and peculiar, sacred and spiritual

relationship of the wife and the husband. After the marriage, the wife

becomes an absolute partner and an integral part of her husband and

the principle on which she is excluded from inheritance on remarriage is that

when she relinquishes her link with her husband even though he is dead

and enters a new family, she is not entitled to retain the property

inherited by her. The same, however, cannot be said of a mother. The mother is

in an absolutely different position and that is why the Hindu Law did not

provide that even the mother would be disinherited if she remarried.

15. We thus are of the view that Section 2 of the 1856 Act in no manner affect the right of

defendant No.1 to succeed the estate of her son Pal Singh and after the death of Pal Singh, she

was rightly held to succeed the properties of Pal Singh.The suit filed by the plaintiff has

been correctly dismissed by all the Courts below. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal and

the same is dismissed.

Related posts

Rhodes v. Moules(1895) 1 Ch. 236 (CA)

Tabassum Jahan

Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 6 SCC 64230 Dr. A.S. Anand and K.T. Thomas, JJ.

vikash Kumar

Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar AIR 2005 SC 626

Arya Mishra

Leave a Comment