AMRITLAL JAISWAL Vs. SAVITRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the application for ejectment filed on 21.3.84 Savitribai has described herself as a widow of late Kantilal Padiyar. In clause 16 (a) of the application, she has stated that she is a widow. In reply a specific plea was taken by the tenant alleging that Savitribai was not the wife of Kantilal and she was his concubine.

(2.) IT was also specifically pleaded that after 1956 when the Hindu Marriage Act came into force Kantilal could not have legally married Savitribai as he had already a duly married wife. The tenant had moved an application raising this objection on 19.6.85 and had also taken this plea in his application for leave to defend. Plaintiff Savitribai was sufficiently put on her guard as regards the challenge to her being a widow of Kantilal and she was expected to clear the position as regards her widowhood and consequent eligibility to file an application under section 23 -A of the Act. It is clear from the record that she has failed to show as she was claiming to be a widow. In her statement before the Court she has stated that she was a widow but when her entire statement is read as a whole, the only inference which can be drawn is that she was claiming to be the widow of Kantilal. Before this Court it was tried to be argued that Savitribai was the widow even earlier to her so -called marriage to Kantilal and even if her marriage to Kantilal is not proved to be a valid marriage, she would not loose her status of widowhood which she had even prior to establishing relatil1nship with Kantilal. However, there is no foundation in the record for such a pica. Savitribai came to the Court claiming to be the widow of Kanlilal alone and at no point of time she claimed to be a widow independently of her so called marriage to Kantilal. The plea is clearly an after -thought and deserves to be rejected.