A widow's rights in her deceased husband's property cease upon remarriage, as established by the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral).

Plaintiffs-Appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016, passed by Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.75 of 2013, titled Neelama Devi and Others Vs. Narotami Devi (deceased) through her legal heir Swarna Devi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 18.09.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.85 of 2002, titled Neelama Devi and Others Vs. Narotami Devi deceased through her legal heirs Swarna Devi, rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant had no right, title or interest over the suit land comprised in Khata No.217, Khatoni No.279, Khasra Nos.967, 981 measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas as per jamanbandi for the year 1997-1998, situated in Tika Sujanpur, Tappa Bhaleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, has been affirmed.

2. For convenience, parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the civil suit, i.e. plaintiffs and defendants.

3. Vide order dated 20.12.2016, present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of Law:-

“1. Whether impugned judgment and decree in appeal passed by Ld. First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of Ld. Trial Cout is the result of misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and law applicable in the matter and resultant findings recorded and conclusions drawn are illegal, incorrect and perverse?”

4. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that defendant-Narotami Devi was married to one Amar Nath, who was real Uncle (Chacha) of plaintiffs, but immediately after marriage defendant eloped with one Baradu Ram alias Durga Dass and gave birth to children from the loins of Baradu Ram. Amar Nath expired on 25.09.1946 and his property had been inherited by plaintiffs including the whole suit land which is being cultivated by the plaintiffs as owners.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that defendant had remarried with Durga Dass before enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1956’) and at the time of death of Amar Nath, the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1856’) was in force, wherein in Section 2 whereof, it has been provided that rights of widows in deceased husband’s property seized to exist on her remarriage.

6. Section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 reads as under:-

“(2) Rights of Widow in deceased husband’s property to cease on her remarriage.- 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 permision to remarry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienation the same, shall upon her re-marriage cease and determine as if she had then died, and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same”.

7. It has been contended for plaintiffs that before enactment of Act 1956, Hindu Widow had limited right in the property of her husband which ceased to exist on remarriage, and as defendant had remarried with Durga Dass after death of Amar Nath, but before 1956, she was not entitled for benefit of Section 14 of Act 1956, which provides that any property possessed by female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of Act 1956, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as limited owner.

8. It has been argued by learned counsel for plaintiffs that as defendant had lost right to continue as owner of the property of Amar Nath, for her remarriage prior to 1956, and, therefore, there was no question of becoming her absolute owner after commencement of Act 1956.

9. According to learned counsel for plaintiffs, had Narotami Devi remarried after 1956, s