CHHANGANI, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal and is directed against he appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 10th July, 1961. By this decree, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondents and reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff appellants suit in entirety.

There is no controversy over facts which may be briefly stated as follows—

2. The dispute relates to the property of one Kachru Brahmin of village Lemdi, Tehsil Sagwara. He had both urban and agricultural properties which have been described in detail in Schedule I annexed to the plaint. He had been married with Mst. Champi Bai the defendant respondent. He died in the year 1950 leaving surviving his widow Mst. Champibai Mst. Champibai as his widow succeeded to his property. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) came into force in June, 1956. This Act, it may be mentioned, improved the condition of the Hindu widow and converted the "limited estate" into "absolute estate". After the promulgation of the Act, Mst. Champi Bai contracted remarriage with Shri Nathu Ram defendant No. 2 some time either in the year 1957 or 1958. After re-marriage she made a gift of the property inherited by her from her deceased husband Kachru in favour of Nathu Ram vide gift deed dated 1-7-1960. Mst. Dhuri Bai is related as an aunt to the deceased Kachru and Mst. Bhuri Bai is the sister of Kachru. Mst. Dhuri Bai and Mst. Bhuri Bai instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, on 5-1-1961, against Mst. Champi Bai and Nathu Ram for a declaration to the effect that they are owners of the property of the deceased Kachru and that the gift deed executed by Mst. Champi Bai in favour of Nathu Ram is ineffective and void against the interests of the plaintiffs. They also prayed for possession of the property of the deceased Kachru. Their case was that Mst. Champi Bai was divested of all rights and interests which she had acquired in her deceased husbands property by inheritance in consequence of her re-marriage and the property devolved upon the plaintiffs who are the next heirs of the deceased Kachru.

3. The defendants contested the plaintiffs suit. It was denied that Mst. Dhuri Bai was related to the deceased Kachru as an aunt in a near degree. It was, however, admitted that Mst. Bhuri Bai was the sister of the deceased Kachru. The defendants main plea was that the property of the deceased Kachru vested in her (Mst. Champi Bai) absolutely as the sole coparcener and sole heiress. It was also alternatively pleaded that after the promulgation of the Act the widows limited estate and the institution of the reversioners were abolished and she became the full owner of the property with right to alienate the property consequently, the plaintiffs had no right or title in the property of the deceased Kachru.

4. The trial court framed one issue as follows:—

"Has Smt. Chapi who possessed the property of her deceased husband lost her rights of ownership over it by reason of her second marriage and therefore she is not entitled to dispose of the property?"

This issue was treated as a legal one and parties led no evidence. It appears that before the trial court having regard to the provisions of sec. 14 of the Act the counsel joined no controversy in relation to the property other than agricultural holding. The counsel for the plaintiffs appears to have conceded that Mst. Champi Bai became absolute owner of all properties other than agricultural holding and the suit in respect of such property does not appear to have been pressed. The parties, however, joined controversy regarding the devolution of the tenancy rights in agricultural holding. The plaintiffs took a stand that the law relating to the devolution of the tenancy rights in respect of the agricultural holdings in the present case is the Hindu Law that was in force before the promulgation of the Act recognising the widows estate and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document