Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., K S Paripoornan, S P Kurdukar, JJ.
PARSHANTI, APPELLANT
VERSUS
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 857 of 1992), decided on March 19, 1997.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a Hindu widow who after the death of her husband remarries another person can lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage, if that property happens to be agricultural land. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a three-Judge Bench in Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation [(1976) 4 SCC 674 : (1977) 2 SCR 25]. This Court applying the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on principles governing Hindu law answered the question in the affirmative stating that in such a situation she is not claiming as the widow of her first husband but is laying a claim as the mother of the predeceased son. Their Lordships did not apply the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the facts of that case or their Lordships attention was not drawn to the special law, Section 171(b) whereof, in terms, excludes a widowed mother, who has remarried. The plain language of this provision in the special law, therefore, clearly excludes the widowed mother, who has remarried, from claiming a share by inheritance from the property of her son born through the first husband. That being so, in the facts of this case, the decision in Kasturi Devi case1 does not apply. In that case, this Court was not applying the provisions of Section 171(b) of the U. P law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the authorities below were right in holding that in view of this special provision her claim was not justified.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
