Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
RAM SWAROOP - Appellant
Versus
MAHENDRU - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 66 of 1987
Decided On : 01/07/1997
HINDU LAW - WIDOW REMARRIAGE - EFFECT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS - HINDU WIDOWS REMARRIAGE ACT, 1856 - SECTION 2 - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW - FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS IN DECEASED HUSBAND'S PROPERTY - APPLICATION TO CASE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be a joint owner of the disputed property to the extent of 1/3rd share, sought partition. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming ownership by virtue of their adverse possession and a private partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not in joint possession, had no 1/3rd share, and was estopped by his acts and conduct. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and granted a decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that upon the remarriage of Smt. Gangi with Bala Ram, she lost all her rights, title, and interest in the estate of her deceased husband, Kanshi Ram, under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856. Consequently, the document executed by Smt. Gangi transferring her rights to Bala Ram was held to be ineffective. The court also found that there was no private partition and that the defendants had not established their adverse possession over the disputed property.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property in dispute? 2. Whether the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the property in dispute? 3. Whether the defendants have become owners by adverse possession as alleged? 4. Whether there has been any private partition, if so, when and what is the effect? 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. Whether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of court fee, in case No. 1 is held against the plaintiff? 8. What is the effect of the previous litigation between defendants father Bala Ram and the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 provides that upon the remarriage of a Hindu widow, all her rights and interests in her deceased husband's property shall cease and determine. 2. The remarriage of Smt. Gangi with Bala Ram resulted in the forfeiture of her rights in the estate of her deceased husband, Kanshi Ram. 3. The document executed by Smt. Gangi transferring her rights to Bala Ram was ineffective in conferring any title or interest on him. 4. The mutation of inheritance in favor of the plaintiff, Bala Ram, and Mast Ram was valid and reflected the legal position after Smt. Gangi's remarriage. 5. The acts and conduct of the parties after the execution of the document showed that they agreed not to abide by its terms relating to the transfer of Kanshi Ram's estate. 6. There was no private partition between the parties, and the land continued to be joint. 7. The defendants failed to establish their adverse possession over the disputed property.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, upholding the plaintiff's title to a 1/3rd share in the disputed property.
R. L. Khurana J.—The appellants, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, have directed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20-12 1986 of the learned District Judge, Solan reversing the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1970 of the then Senior Sub-Judge. Mahasu.
2. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the landed property and shop premises detailed in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute.
3. One Shri Krishan Dutt, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, claimed himself to be the joint owner of the property in dispute to the extent of l/3rd share and as such entitled to get the same partitioned by metes and bounds. It was pleaded that an application for partition of the landed property was made by the deceased plaintiff Krishan Dutt before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Solan, wherein the defendants raised a question of title. The Assistant Collector accordingly directed the plaintiff to get a declaration of his title from a competent civil court. A suit for declaration, partition, and rendition of accounts was therefore, filed, being civil suit No. 62/1 of 1968 on the files of the then Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu.
4. The defendants while resisting the suit pleaded that out of the property in dispute, land measuring 63 Bighas 6 Biswas was previously owned by one Kanshi Ram to the extent of 2/3rd share, while the remaining one third share was owned jointly by S/Shri Bala Ram, Mansha Ram and Mathu Ram, They were in separate possession of the land in accordance with their respective shares in terms of a family partition Kanshi Ram died about 32 years before the suit. His estate was inherited by his widow Smt. Gangi. After one year of the death of Kanshi Ram, his widow Smt. Gangi contracted a second customary marriage with Bala Ram and she relinquished all her rights and interest in the estate of her deceased husband Kanshi Ram in favour of her second husband Bala Ram. Since then Shri Bala Ram has been coming in exclusive possession of the estate of the deceased Kanshi Ram as owner thereof. The defendants who are the legal heirs of the said Bala Ram succeeded to the said estate of Kanshi Ram as well as the share of Bala Ram in the joint khata. The plaintiff has no rigkt, title or interest in the estate of deceased Kanshi Ram, He had only l/9th share in the joint- khata and was in separate possession thereof. The remaining 8/9th share have all along being in exclusive possession of the defendant and their predecessors-in-interest. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming repartition of the property in dispute in view of the earlier family partition. In so far as shop premises are concerned, it was averred that the same were constructed by Bala Ram, father of the defendants, at his own costs about 20 years before the suit and the plaintiff has no right or interest therein. In the alternative, the case of the defendants was that they have become the owners qua the share of the plaintiff by virtue of their adverse possession.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the parties were put to trial on the following issues :-—
1. Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property in dispute ? O. P. P. (objected)
2. Whether the plaintiff has l/3rd share in the property in dispute ? O. P. P.
3. Whether the defendants have become owners by adverse possession as alleged ? O. P. D.
4. Whether there has been any private partition, if so, when and what is the effect ? O, P, D.
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct ? O P. D.
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? O. P. D.
7. Whether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of court fee, in case No. 1 is held against the plaintiff ? O. P. D.
8. What is the effect of the previous litigation between defendants father Bala Ram and the plaintiff ? O. P. P,
9. Relief.
6. The learned trial Court decided issues
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
