Rajamannar, C.J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to properties which originally belonged to, and were enjoyed by one Mookan Asari, the husband of the defendant. The plaintiff is his brother. The defendant’s husband died on 28th October, 1943, issueless leaving considerable properties. The plaintiff, the brother, filed a suit against the widow, the defendant, O.S. No. 239 of 1944, in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram, claiming the properties on the ground that the properties belonged to an undivided joint family of which he was the surviving coparcener. The defendant contended that the properties were the separate properties of Mookan Asari. Eventually the suit was compromised and a decree was passed on that compromise on 11th June, 1945. The main terms of the compromise were that the plaintiff should succeed to and be in enjoyment of the properties set out in Schedule I to the compromise with all rights and privileges and that the defendant should succeed to, and be in enjoyment of the properties in Sche.dule II of the compromise with all rights and privileges. In the decree which was passed in accordance with these terms the following clauses are material-

(1) "That the plaintiff do enjoy the properties mentioned in the first schedule hereunder absolutely from this date".

(2) That the defendant do enjoy the properties mentioned in the second schedule hereunder absolutely from this date...."

On 24th September, 1946, the defendant married again one Somasundaram Asari and almost immediately thereafter, on 26th October, 1946, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises, for recovery of possession of the properties which were allotted to the defendant under the compromise, on the ground that she had forfeited all her rights under Hindu Law and under Act XV of 1856, the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the defendant did not forfeit her rights to the properties given to her under the compromise decree. But on appeal the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli held otherwise and decreed the suit. The defendant thereupon filed a second appeal to this Court which was heard and disposed of by Subba Rao, J. He reversed the decision of the learned District Judge and restored the decree of the District Munsif. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. He died pending the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record and they continue this appeal.

Mr. R. Ramamurthi Ayyar, learned counsel for the appellant, confined his contention to an application of section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act. That section runs thus:

"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 permission to re-marry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating 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".

Section 5 specifically saves the rights of the widow except as provided in section 2 and also sections 3 and 4 and runs thus:

"Except as in the three preceding sections is provided, a widow shall not, by reason of her re-marriage forfeit any property or any right to which she would otherwise be entitled ; and every widow who has re-married shall have the same rights of inheritance as she would have had, had such marriage been her first marriage".

The short question in this appeal is whether the suit property to which the defendant became entitled under the compromise decree abovementioned will fall within one or other of the three categories of rights and interests mentioned in section 2 of the Act. The three categories are: (1) t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document