1. By consent, the Second Appeal is taken on board for final hearing and heard forthwith, since a very short question of law is involved.

2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on 12th September, 2005 by framing following questions:

“(a) Whether the lower courts considered properly and interpreted properly Sec.14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

(b) Whether the lower courts considered properly that appellant being a widow of late Narhari Laxman Rakshe, is entitled for share in the suit properties and also entitled to the benefit of Sec.14 of Hindu Succession Act.?”

3. The facts which are not in dispute are as under:

(i) Laxman Rakshe who died in the year 1942 was the original ancestor / propositor. He had left behind him three sons namely Hari (Respondent No.1), Tukaram (Respondent No.2) and Narhari (husband of Original Appellant-Sitabai). Admittedly, Narhari died in the year 1952, leaving behind his widow-Sitabai and two daughters namely Janabai Rakshe and Manabai Rakshe. It is also admitted that the widow-Sitabai remarried Gangaram R.Shete in the year 1952 itself.

(iii) The said Sitabai filed RCS No.164 of 2002 against the Respondents for partition and separate possession, which was dismissed by learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon, Maval on 30th September, 2003. The remarriage had admittedly taken place in the year 1952 and, hence, the Trial Court held that provision of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will not benefit the Original Plaintiff/ Appellant. The Original Plaintiff/ Appellant filed Civil Appeal No.781 of 2003 which had been dismissed by the learned 13th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Pune on 18th December, 2004, leading to filing of this Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal was admitted with the aforesaid questions being framed.

5. Section 2 of Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856 reads thus:

“2. Right of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on her re-marriage. All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husband's property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express permission to remarry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as if she has then died; and the next heir of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.”

6. The law in this regard is fairly well settled. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 (Act of XVIII, 1937) reads thus:

“ WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Hindu law to give better right to women in respect of property:

It is hereby enacted as follows:

1. The Act may be called the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937.

2. Notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary the provisions of section 3 shall apply where as Hindu died intestate.

3.(1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property and when a Hindu governed by any other School of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow (c), or if there is more than one widow all his widows together, shall subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son:

Provided that the widow of a predeceased son (c1) shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a son's son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son;

Provided further that the same provision shall apply mutais mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.

(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga School or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu