SHIKHARCHAND JAIN Vs. DIGAMBAR JAIN PRABANDH KARINI SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding the proclaimed equality of the sexes the personal laws, which are in some measure a legacy for the live present from the petrified past, have perpetuated an ancient discrimination as the facts and the law, we are called upon to decide in the present case, demonstrate. The core question argued before us, epigrmmtically expressed, is whether the estate of a woman is only a woman's estate

(2.) The first appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court but on second appeal the latter was restored. The 1st defendant came to this Court in appeal but in the course of arguments on an earlier occasion it was felt necessary that a fresh finding should be called for in view of the death of Smt. Rajrani pendente lite. We will refer in some more detail to the said remand order but, at this stage, it may be mentioned that the question on which a finding was called for assumed that Raj Rani had only a limited estate. If so, the appellant, claiming to be the nearest reversioner, would ordinarily be entitled to the property and the respondent-plaintiff would lose the land unless other defences were made out. The finding recorded by the trial Court on remand has gone in favour of the appellant so much so the appellant has to be taken as the nearest reversioner entitled to the property if the late Raj Rani had died as a limited owner of the suit property.

(3.) The crucial issue therefore is as to whether the alienor of the plaintiff had only a woman's estate, as understood in the Hindu Law; secondly, whether the finding recorded by the trial Court based on spiritual benefit of the deceased husband and left obscurely alone in the later stages of the spiral of litigation, has any surving impact on the result in this appeal.