SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 362

High Court Of Calcutta
N. C. Mukherji
KHAGENDRA NATH GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
KARUNADHAR KALA - Respondent
A. F. A. D.  476  Of  1968
Decided On : 05/30/1978

Advocates Appeared:
PHANI BHUSAN DAS, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY

Unchastity of a widow is no longer a bar to inherit her husband's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - UNCHASTITY OF WIDOW - DISQUALIFICATION - REMOVED - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, SS. 4, 24, 25, 26, 28.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to the suit land and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands belonged to late Charu Chandra Ghosh, on whose death those devolved on his wife Mira Bala. The plaintiff purchased the suit lands by a Kobala dated 15-12-1962 from Mira Bala. On the following day when he went to possess the suit lands and to reap the paddy grown on them by Charu Chandra Ghosh, the principal defendants together resisted him on the plea that they had purchased the suit lands from pro-defendants. Hence, the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband, but held that unchastity was no longer a bar to succeed to a husband's property according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

Issues: Whether unchastity of a widow is a bar to inherit her husband's property under the Hindu Succession Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that no person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as provided in the Act, on any other ground whatsoever, removes the disqualification of unchastity of a widow to inherit her husband's property.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court.

N. C. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Amitava Dutta, Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 142 of 1966 dated 3rd Sept. 1966 reversing those of Shri B. Mahapatra, Munsif, 3rd Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 68 of 1963 dated 21-12-1965.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1, 4 and 7 are the appellants in this Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to the suit land and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands belonged to late Charu Chandra Ghosh, on whose death those devolved on his wife Mira Bala. The plaintiff purchased the suit lands by a Kobala dated 15-12-1962 from Mira Bala. On the following day when he went to possess the suit lands and to reap the paddy grown on them by Charu Chandra Ghosh, the principal defendants together resisted him on the plea that they had purchased the suit lands from pro-defendants. Hence, the suit. Only defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 7 contested the suit.

( 3 ) THEIR defence is that Mirabala became unchaste during the lifetime of her husband Charu Chandra Ghosh and left him. Under the circumstances, Mirabala could not inherit the property of her husband and the vendors of the principal defendants became his heirs of the suit lands and they later sold the suit lands to the principal defendants, the said sale being much earlier than the sale by Mirabala in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif found on evidence that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband and he was of opinion that unchastity was a bar to inheritance according to old Hindu law and that bar has not been removed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In that view of his finding, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the findings of the learned Munsif. He found that the learned Munsif was right to hold that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband. But the learned Judge was of opinion that unchastity was no longer a bar to succeed to a husband's property according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In that view of his finding, the learned Judge decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 7 have come up to this Court.

( 4 ) MR. Syama Prosanna Roychowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, is fair to sav that as both the courts have concurrently found that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband, he cannot challenge that finding of fact in this appeal. As regards the point of law involved in this case, Mr. Roychowdhury with much emphasis contended that the learned court of appeal below was wrong to hold that unchastity was not a bar according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Mr. Roychowdhury places before me the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act. The said section reads as follows:-- "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in respect of any matter for which provision is made in this Act". Mr. Roychowdhury submits that Ss. 24, 25 and 26 enumerate the grounds of disqualifications from inheritance. Again, Section 28 provides that no person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity or save as provided in this Act on any other ground whatsoever. It is contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the expression "on any other ground whatsoever" mentioned in Section 28 must be such ground analogous to disease, defect or deformity. According to Mr. Roychowdhury there is no specific provision in the Hindu Succession Act by which the disqualification to inherit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top