HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956 – CASE LAW – Section 24
Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Bench: JJFazalali and Syed Murtaza
Facts:
- The disputed Khata was recorded in the name of Karua the son of Madhua who died leaving behind his widow Kasturi and his son Karua.
- Madhua had two brothers Khushi Ram. It is obvious that on the death of Madhua, Kasturi as the widow got half share in the property and the other half went to Karua.
- On the death of Karua , the two brothers of Madhua came forward claiming the property.
Issue:
Who is entitled to claim the property held by Karua?
Contentions raised by Respondent:
- The wife becomes an absolute partner and an integral part of her husband and the principle on which she is excluded from inheritance on re-marriage 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.
- There was abundant evidence to prove that Kasturi had re-married Lekhraj and therefore, in law she would be excluded from inheriting the property and was not entitled to be mutated in respect of the Khata in question.
Contentions raised by Petitioner:
- Kasturi 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.
Held:
The observed, the Hindu Law did not provide that even the mother would be disinherited if the remarried.Kasturi claimed inheritance not as a widow of her husband Madhua but as the mother of Karua. Thus, "unchastity of a mother is no bar to her succeeding as heir to her son, nor does her remarriage constitute any such bar". Under the Hindu law, the bar of inheritance would not apply to a mother, as it would to a widow.
