DULHABH SETH Vs. BHARAT SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit by the rever-sioners for possession of certain lands which were till recently in the possession of one Kausalya. Kausalya succeeded to the properties on the death of her son Kartick in 1905. Kartick died unmarried and issueless. In 1907 Kausalya re-married one Bigna Sethi and through this union Bakul, the father of the defendants (appellants) was born. Kausalya died in 1946, and the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 142- 1946 by the reversioners of Kartick. The plea taken on behalf of the defendants is that Kausalya forfeited her right to the suit lands on her re-marriage and that she prescribed for an absolute title by reason of her possession after remarriage, such possession Having become adverse to the true owners. It is admitted that second marriage of widows is permitted in the caste to which the parties belong. It is also undisputed that Kausalya's possession was that of a mother and that her interest in the properties of Kartick was only a limited interest. The question is whether Kausalya forfeited her interest in her son's property by reason of her re-marriage and, if so, whether her possession became adverse from the date of her re-marriage. The rule of Hindu law which lays down that a widow; on her re-marriage, forfeits her interest in her husband's estate applies only to a widow as such and is not applicable to a widow who succeeds as mother. THIS position of law is covered by ample authority and needs no discussion. Even otherwise if Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, were to be applied the widow would forfeit her right as mother, but as she entered into possession as limited owner her subsequent possession would not be changed in the absence of evidence of a change of her animus. All that has been proved in this case is that she continued in possession, and nothing more. We are therefore unable to hold that the character of her possession underwent a change at any time during the period when she was enjoying the properties.

(2.) IN our opinion the Courts below have taken the right view of the law and we see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed but as there is no appearance for the respondent there will be no order as to costs.