ATRI Vs. BABITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013. That is how, the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN short, the case set out by the plaintiff was that mutation No. 2701 sanctioned on 20.11.2004, vide which the estate of Ranbir i.e. son of the plaintiff was mutated in the name of the parties to the lis in equal shares was illegal and void. Plaintiff claimed herself to be the absolute owner of 1/9th share of the deceased i.e. Ranbir. It was prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating 1/18th share in the suit land, on the basis of wrong and illegal mutation No. 2701. It was pleaded that plaintiff happened to be mother of Ranbir son of Jeeta, who expired on 20.08.2004 leaving behind plaintiff as his mother and defendant as his wife. Defendant re -married Bijender @ Dharmender son of Rajpal, resident of village Sivah, Tehsil and District Panipat, and, thus, divested herself of the share she had inherited in the estate of her late husband. As defendant was negotiating to alienate the share she had acquired, thus, the suit.

(3.) ON an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that in the wake of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, widow's remarriage did not divest her of rights in her late husband's property. Reliance was placed upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Cherotte Sugathan vs. Cherotte Bharathi, : RCR 2008(2) 697, Sukhbir vs. Smt. Maya, 1999(1) LJR 40(PH). As is so observed by the learned trial Court, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further observed that provisions of Section 14 and 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, overrides the provisions of Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856. Thus, having succeeded to the estate of her late husband and acquired rights therein, subsequent remarriage by the widow would not divest her of the share she had already acquired. That being so, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.