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.
