PARKASH KAUR Vs. UDHAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Harnam Singh, who was in possession of a certain area of agricultural land in the Punjab, as a mortgagee, died leaving him surviving a widow and a pre-deceased son's widow. After his death the mortgage was redeemed, the entire amount of the mortgage money being paid to the widow. The pre-deceased son's widow thereafter instituted a suit to recover one half share of the mortgage money from the widow, or in the alternative from the legal representatives of the mortgagor, basing her claim on Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. On a reference to this Court in In re The Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act [1941] F. C. R. 12 the Court delivered the opinion that the Act did not operate to regulate succession to agricultural land in the Governors' Provinces. The question that arose for decision in this case was whether the mortgagee rights held by Harnam Singh were or were not agricultural land. A division bench of the Lahore High Court, before whom the case eventually came on Letters Patent Appeal, answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the suit, but gave a certificate under Section 205 (1) of the Constitution Act. The plaintiff has now come up on appeal before us.

(2.) ENTRY 7 of List III of the seventh schedule to the Constitution Act (Concurrent Legislative List) comprises wills, intestacy, and succession, save as regards agricultural land. The devolution of agricultural land is thus a purely provincial subject by virtue of ENTRY 21 of List II (Provincial. List) which runs as follows: Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer, alienation and devolution of agricultural land ; The expression "agricultural land" is not defined in the Constitution Act, but in our judgment the language employed in this ENTRY leaves, no room for doubt that agricultural land must be deemed to include rights in or over agricultural land. Any other construction would give rise to serious anomalies.

(3.) WE agree with the learned Judges of the High Court in holding that the property in dispute is agricultural land within the meaning of Entry 21 of List II and that succession to it is not regulated by the Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act. The suit was rightly dismissed by the High Court.