BALLABHA PANI AND ANR. Vs. JASODHARA PANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASODHARA (Plaintiff), widow of Dileswar, obtained a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of some properties and for partition of other properties. As it was a preliminary decree in respect of the properties involved in partition, she filed an application to make the decree final. The Petitioner filed objection alleging that as she remarried subsequent to the decree, she forfeited her interest in the properties of her husband and therefore she had no further right to continue the final decree proceedings. The objection was dismissed and against the order of dismissal the civil revision has been filed.

(2.) A deed of gift (Ext. 1) was executed on 17 -6 -1963 by Dileswar in favour of the Plaintiff. The date of marriage, as found ' by the trial Court, is 22 -6 -1963. As the marriage is subsequent to the deed of gift, Mr. Mahapatra contended that the deed of gift was in favour of the Plaintiff while she was unmarried. In the deed of gift there was the provision for maintenance of the Plaintiff during her lifetime. The Plaintiff was prohibited from effecting any alienation of the property in any manner even for necessity without taking the consent of her husband. There was no transfer of the corpus of the estate in favour of the wife. If the Plaintiff 's title obtained in the decree were the same as conveyed under the deed of gift, the character of the interest acquired by the Plaintiff would be limited and not absolute. Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act (Act XXX) of 195) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), this interest would continue to be limited. The decree, however, shows that the Plaintiff 's title to the land did not flow from the deed of gift but was based on inheritance from her husband (see paragraph 28 and 29 of the judgment). Under the law, as it obtained on the date of the institution of the suit in 1954, she had a limited interest in the property. She acquired an absolute title therein under Section 14(1) of the Act as admittedly she was in possession of the property on the date of the passing of the Act.

(3.) THE further question for consideration is whether the aforesaid position of law was affected by the Act. Section 31 of the Act, in terms repeals the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment Act), 1929 and the Hindu Women 's Right to Property Act, 1937. Section 4 of the Act provides for the over riding effect of the Act. It lays down Section 4(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided -