LAWS(P&H)-1981-12-41

SHRIMATI UDHAM KAUR Vs. HARBANS

Decided On December 15, 1981
SHRIMATI UDHAM KAUR Appellant
V/S
HARBANS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Chand and Amra, sons of Achhru, owned land in equal shares. On the death of Jai Chand, his share devolved on his son Harhans and on the death of Amra, who died after Jai Chand, his share was inherited by Snit. Udham Kaur, his widow as a limited owner. On 7th July, 1966, Harhans filed the Present suit against Snit. Udham Kaur for declaration that he had become owner of the entire land once held by Jai Chand and Amra, Smt. Udham Kaur defendant had left the house of her husband and latter on married Batna and gave birth to a son from his loins and under custom forfeited the estate of her first husband. The suit was contested by the defendant and she pleaded that she had throughout been in possession of the land belonging to her husband and that she never remarried, However, she admitted that She had a love affairs with Batra, who as her husband's first cousin, as' a result of which a son was born to her in 1968. The trial Court found that the defendant had remarried Batna but since the plaintiff had failed to prove any custom that on remarriage a widow would forfeit the estate of her first husband, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as follows on the point of custom : -

(2.) Neither in the plaint nor in evidence it has come on record as to when the marriage between the defendant-appellant and Batna took place. All that the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint is that after the death of Amra, the left her husband's house and two years later contracted a second marriage with Batna. However, it has been established on the record that a son was born to the defendant-appellant in the year 1958 from the loins of Batna. The Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), came into force on 17th June, 1956. Since no definite date of marriage has been proved, it can reasonably be inferred that she was married to Batna about 210 days before the birth of the child and while doing so, it can reasonably be inferred that the marriage might have taken place somewhere in the year 1957, and I proceed to decide this case on that basis.

(3.) On the death of Amra, the defendant-appellant succeeded to him as his widow to a limited estate because admittedly Amra died before the coming into force of the Act. The moment the Act came into force, by virtue of section 14(1), she has become full owner of the property in dispute with the result that if she remarried thereafter, she could not forfeit the rights in the property of which she became full owner for the first time by virtue of the Act and would be treated as fresh stock of descendant in her own right, having acquired ownership, not by inheritance but by virtue of the Act, that is, by fiction of law. The aforesaid view of mine finds support from Pandurarg Narayan Salunke v. Sindhu and another, 1971 AIR(Bom) 413 and Smt. Bhuri Bai v. Mst. Champi Bai and another, 1968 AIR(Raj) 139 On this basis along the suit has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.