Modi, J.—This case has been placed before us as the result of a reference by a learned single Judge as it involves the determination of an interesting question of law relating to the right of a widow in a joint Hindu family, her husband having died before the Jaipur Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1947 (No. 38 of 1947), which was the counter-part of the Indian Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 (No. XVIII of 1937), had come into force.

2. The facts relating to this appeal may be conveniently stated with reference to the following pedigree table : —

Girdharilal(died somewhere near 1926 A.D.)

Widow Mst Dakhli(Deft. 2)

Gordhan(died without leaving anywidow or issue) Kishenlal Gulabchand

Widow Mst. Mohari(Plaintiff) Widow Mst. Chukli(Deft. 1)

It is admitted that Kishenlal, husband of the plaintiff Mst. Mohari, died some time in 1945 A.D. leaving behind him his widow and his brother Gulabchand and his mother Mst. Dakhli. It is also admitted that Gulabchand died in 1951 A.D. On the latters death, Mst. Mohari brought the present suit for possession of her husbands one-third share in the joint family property by partition. It is not disputed before us that Girdharilal, Kishenlal and Gulabchand were members of a joint Hindu family. The property sought to be partitioned is a Guwadi situate in the town of Sri Madhopur, which belonged to the former State of Jaipur, until that State became part of the integrated State of Rajasthan. It may be mentioned here that the Jaipur Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1947 (No. 38 of 1947), (hereinafter referred to as the Jaipur Act of 1947) came into force in that State for the first time on the 24th September, 1947. The contention before the learned single Judge was that even though the aforesaid Act came into force in 1947, after the death of her husband Kishanlal, Mst. Mohari the plaintiff, was entitled to the benefit of it, and, therefore, she was entitled to partition of her husbands share in the joint family property.

3. The suit was resisted by Mst. Dakhli, widow of Girdharilal. Mst, Chukli, widow of Gulabchand allowed it to proceed ex parte. The defence of Mst. Dakhli was that the suit property was the self-acquired, exclusive property of her husband, and, therefore, she alone was entitled to it. But this hardly matters inasmuch as on the death of her husband Girdharilal, his sons became entitled to inherit it in law to the exclusion of the formers widow in the absence of any such law as the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act which admittedly was not in force at that time, Mst. Dakhji also pleaded that the plaintiff was an unchaste widow, but this plea has also been rejected by both courts below and in our opinion rightly. The decision of the case, therefore, mainly turns on the legal question whether Mst. Mohari as a Hindu widow could or could not be held entitled to the benefit of the Jaipur Act of 1947, her husband having died in 1945 before that Act came into force. This question has been decided against the plaintiff and it was on this ground that the trial court dismissed her suit, and the dismissal was maintained by the learned District Judge. The plaintiff then came in appeal to this Court, and this appeal was in the first instance laid before a learned single Judge who has referred it to this Court.

4. The question which emerges for consideration from the facts and circumstances mentioned above may be formulated as follows :—

"Whether Mst. Mohari the plaintiff after her husband Kishanlals death acquired any right or interest in the joint family property which admittedly belonged to her husband and his brother Gulabchand under the Jaipur Act of 1947 notwithstanding the circumstance that her husband had died in 1943 before the said Act came into force."

5. Now, the Jaipur Act of 1947 is an exact copy of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act (No. XVIII) of 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Act of 1937) as amended by Act No. 11 of 1938. There can be no doubt that un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document