Subsequent re marriage of window does not affect the property rights from her deceased husband

Citation

CDJ 2008 SC 226

Cherotte sugathan (dead) by Lrs and others vs cherotte Bharathi and others

Head Note

Hindu Widow's Re-Marriage Act, 1856 - Section 2 - Rights of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on her re-marriage - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 4, Section 14(1), Section 24 - The properties in dispute belonged to one SP - SP died on 20.10.1975. Son S died on 2.8.1976 - First respondent is his widow. First respondent remarried one E S - She filed a suit on 31.12.1985 for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property - Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act was enacted to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows - Section 2 reads as under: "2. Rights of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on her re-marriage.-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 to his lineal successors, or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express permission to re-marry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her re-marriage 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 - Applicability of the said provision must be tested having regard to the provisions contained in Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 4 of the Act provides for the overriding effect of the Act - The Act brought about a sea change in Shastric Hindu Law. Hindu widows were brought on equal footing in the matter of inheritance and succession along with the male heirs. Section 14(1) stipulates that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, will be held by her as a full owner thereof - Upon the death of S, his share vested in the first respondent absolutely. Such absolute vesting of property in her could not be subjected to divestment, save and except by reason of a statute - Succession had not opened in this case when the 1956 Act came into force. Section 2 of the 1856 Act speaks about a limited right but when succession opened on 2.8.1976, first respondent became an absolute owner of the property by reason of inheritance from her husband in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the 1956 Act. Section 4 of the 1956 Act has an overriding effect. The provisions of 1956 Act, thus, shall prevail over the text of any Hindu Law or the provisions of 1856 Act. Section 2 of the 1856 Act would not prevail over the provisions of the 1956 Act having regard to Section 4 and 24 thereof.

Para 9 to 13

Cases Referred:
1. Chando Mehtain & Ors. v. Khublal Mahto & Ors. AIR 1983 Patna 33
2. Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 2595
3. Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by LRs. v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 139
4. Thankam v. Rajan, AIR 1999 Ker. 62. (Relied)

Comparative Citations:
2008 (1) KLT 846, 2008 (2) SCC 610, 2008 (2) MLJ 926, 2008 (2) LW 102, 2008 (2) CTC 92, 2008 (2) ALT 8 (SC), 2008 (2) Supreme 321, 2008 (2) SCJ 284, 2008 AIR(SC) 1467, 2008 (2) SCR 984, 2008 (2) Scale 511, 2008 (1) CLT 276, 2008 (2) SLT 287