1. Remarried Hindu widow — Claim to agricultural land of predeceased son from first marriage — Inheritance dispute. (Para 2 )
1997 Supreme(SC) 524
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.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
A widowed mother, after remarrying another person, laid a claim to the agricultural land of her son born from her first marriage.
Findings of Court:
The claim of the remarried widowed mother is not justified in view of the specific exclusion provided under the special law governing agricultural land.
Issues: Whether a Hindu widow who remarries can claim the agricultural land of her son from the first marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while general Hindu law might allow a mother to claim as such, the special law, specifically Section 171(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, explicitly excludes a widowed mother who has remarried from inheriting the property of her son from the first marriage. The provisions of the special law prevail over the general law. (Para 2)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether general Hindu law principles allowing a mother to inherit from a predeceased son override special land reform legislation excluding remarried widows. (Para 2 )
3. Section 171(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, explicitly excludes remarried widowed mothers from inheriting their son's property. (Para 2 )
4. Special legislation governing agricultural land inheritance overrides general Hindu succession law regarding the eligibility of remarried widowed mothers. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Can a remarried Hindu widow claim agricultural land of her predeceased son from the first marriage under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
No. Section 171(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, specifically excludes a widowed mother who has remarried from claiming a share by inheritance from the property of her son born through the first husband. (Para 2 )
7. Does the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prevail over the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, regarding agricultural land inheritance?
No. The court held that the plain language of the special law (Section 171(b) of the U.P. Act) excludes the remarried widowed mother, and therefore general principles of Hindu law do not apply in such cases. (Para 2 )
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.