Judgement Summary:
In this case, it was held that a widow loses her right over the deceased husband’s property after re-marriage, according to Section 2 of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856. It was observed that in the instant case, there were no reliable sources and evidence to proof the re-marriage of defendant-1, and hence the Court held that her inheritance of her deceased husband’s property is valid. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the second appeal and upheld the order of the first appellate Court.
Date of Judgement:
28th June 2021
Coram:
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Parties:
Appellants: Loknath (dead) (Plaintiff), Shribachahh Kumar Bhoi, Rajendra Kumar Bhoi (dead), Rewati Bhoy, Bhodhram Bhoy, Surendra Bhoy, Dileshwar Kumar Bhoi
Respondents: Kiyabai, Sindhu, Kishore Chand (dead), Chitrarekha, Harishi Kesh, Deewaker (dead), Gulapi Bhoy, Tillottama (dead), State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh.
Case Summary
There is always confusion with regards to the devolution of a deceased husband’s property or share on his widow post her re-marriage. The same was analysed in this case. The Judge upheld the first appellate Court’s order of justifying the right of the widow over her husband’s share. However, it was ruled so only after coming to the conclusion that the appellants didn’t have enough material to prove her re-marriage according to chudi form. Nonetheless, the Court clearly stated that a woman’s right over her deceased husband’s share ceases once she marries again.
Facts of the Case
- The present petition substantially involves a disputed immovable property belonging to one Mr. Sugriv (Late), which was argued to be partitioned among his descendants.
- A share of one of his grandson, Ghasi, devolved upon his wife after his death in 1942, and she had a “limited right” over it according to the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937,
- Subsequently, she became its “absolute owner” after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Section 14(1).
- The plaintiff, who was another grand son of the property owner, filed a suit against the widow on the ground that the latter had remarried, and therefore, her right over the share ceases.
- The Trial Court passed the verdict favoring the plaintiff despite the respondent’s denial of the allegations.
- On the first appeal, the Lower Court overruled the Trial Court’s verdict and held the widow’s right over the share as valid.
- The instant petition is the second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, challenging the Lower Court’s Order.
Issues Involved
- Whether the lower appellate Court was right in overruling the decision of the Trial Court by recording a finding of partition prior to death of Ghashiram in 1942 in the absence of there being any issue framed?
- Whether the learned appellate Court was justified in holding the partition amongst the descendants in the absence of legal evidence?
- Whether the plaintiff’s argument against the defendants right?
Important Provisions
- Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that a property possessed by a Hindu female would be her absolute property irrespective of whether it was acquired before or after the commencement of the Act.
- Section 2 of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856 debars a widow from enjoying possession of her inherited property of deceased husband after re-marriage. It states that her all rights and interests in her deceased husband’s property would cease on re-marriage.
- Section 6 of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856 states that the ceremonies performed, words spoken, or engagements made on the marriage of an unmarried Hindu female would also be applicable in cases of re-marriage of widows.
- Clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz: “When a ryot dies, his holding shall descend to a son or son’s son or to collaterals, who were joint with the ryot at the time of his death. In default of such heirs, it will descend to his widow for her life-time or until she is remarried to a man other than her late husband’s younger brother; but it shall not descend to collateral who were not joint with the deceased at the time of his death. Daughters and their offspring shall have no right to inherit. In default of heirs as above, the holding of the deceased ryot shall be at the disposal of the gaontia.”
Plaintiff’s Argument
- It was submitted that Ghasi in 1942, and his wife, Kiya, had remarried in 1954-55 in chudi form.
- Accordingly, her right over her deceased husband’s share ceases, and she would be governed by Clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz.
- The defendants, thereby, do not have any right or title on the disputed share, and therefore, the plaintiff’s possession should be upheld since the property was undivided.
Respondent’s Argument
- The defendants argued that they have succeeded the property, and are in possession thereof since the demise of Ghasi.
- It was also pleaded that the order of the Tahsildar (dated 28-5-1984) entering their names in the revenue record was legal.
- Further, the defendant wife also denied the allegations of entering into a second marriage.
Trial Court’s Order
The Trial Court validated the second marriage, and therefore, held that Clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz applies in the present, and therefore, the defendant is entitled only to 5 khandi of land for maintenance.
Local Appellate Court’s Order
The local appellate Court set aside the Trial Court’s decree, and held that the property would absolutely devolve upon the defendant wife under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Appellant’s Submission on Second Appeal
It was submitted that the first Appellate Court’s judgement was erroneous. Mr. Neelkanth Malaviya, Counsel for the Appellants, cited several case laws including Eramma v. Veerupana and others, Ajit Kaur alias Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh (dead) through legal representatives and others, etc.
Judgement Analysis
Courts Order
- The defendant’s right over the property is valid and absolute, and the appellants have no relief in this case.
- Women losses her deceased husband’s property on remarriage.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the decree passed by the lower appellate Court. It stated that the Appellants failed to prove that the defendant wife had remarried according to the chudi form.
The Court recorded the statements given by the Appellants and Defendants in their cross examination. It observed that the defendant wife had inherited the property-share from her deceased husband, and cultivated it for two year. There forth, the plaintiff and his father used to cultivate and give the crops in lieu of cultivation. It was also confirmed that the defendant wife remained in possession of the share until her death. Therefore, the right of the defendant over Ghasi’s share is well-established.
Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal also analysed and adduced relevant case laws in this regard. Gostha Behari vs. Haridas Samanta (AIR 1957 Cal. 557), it was held that in order to validated the property right of a woman under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property must be in actual or constructive possession of the woman at the date of the commencement of the Act. Similarly, in Dindayal and Anr. vs. Rajaram (AIR 1970 SC 1019), the right to possession of the property was considered as an important parameter along with the actual or constructive possession of the property.
Further, relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Lochan Prasad case, the Court admitted that the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz would not apply in the instant case. Therefore, after the death of Ghasi, the defendant becomes the limited owner of his share under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937. After the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, she becomes the absolute owner thereof.
The Court also considered the statements of the Appellants regarding the second marriage of the defendant wife. However, the Judge dismissed the plea stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove her re-marriage under Section 6 of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856. Nonetheless, the same Learned Judge also held that the effect of re-marriage would be that the woman would lose the right over her deceased husband’s property. With this, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion
A woman’s rights are always limited when compared to those of men. Certain laws are prejudiced against women, and one such law is the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856. According to Section 2 of the Act, a widow loses her inherited share of her deceased husband if she re-marries. This forces a widow to rethink twice before entering into a second marriage. This law implicates that in order to gain something new, a woman has to forcefully lose something in her possession.
However, there was another Law governing the Law of Succession. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives a female an absolute right over her deceased husband’s property under section 14. Recently, in several cases, including the Cherotte Sugathan vs Cherotte Bharathi (2008), the Supreme Court held that the provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act would prevail over those under the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, and therefore, re-marriage would not affect a woman’s claim on her deceased husband’s property.
In the instant case, though the High Court seems right in upholding the first Appellate Court’s verdict, yet it erred in accepting the provisions under Section 6 of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act. The learned Judge failed to look at the recent judgements relating to the inheritance right of remarried women. Though, his observation, in this regard, may seem irrelevant to the instant case, yet, it could serve as an unwanted or unwelcomed precedent in the future.
