The remarriage of a widow does not disqualify her from inheriting her deceased husband's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The second defendant in O.S.No.155 of 2013, a suit for partition, is on an appeal aggrieved by the rejection of her claim to a share in the suit properties by the Trial Court.

2. Parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit for the purpose of convenience. The first respondent as plaintiff sued for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties. Item 1 of the suit properties originally belonged to one Chinnu Gounder, who had, by a settlement deed dated 25.07.1946, settled the said properties among other properties in favour of his three sons namely Sevi Gounder, Chinnapaiya Gounder and Chinna Gounder, and two of his brother's sons namely Ayyamperumal Gounder and Periasamy Gounder. As per the said instrument, the settlees will take a life interest in the properties settled under the said document and after their death, the properties will devolve on their male issues. The document also provides that in the absence of male issues, the properties will devolve on the other heirs. Contending that Sevi Gounder died leaving behind the plaintiff himself and the first defendant as his heirs, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of his half share.

3.1 With reference to Item 2 of the suit properties, it was the contention of the plaintiff that the said property was purchased by the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly on 29.01.1978 and as such, the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to half share. As regards Item 3 of the property, it was the claim of the plaintiff that the property belonged to Sevi Gounder, father of the plaintiff and the first defendant ancestrally and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the said properties.

3.2 It was contended that Sevi Gounder's wife, Ayyamammal died on 01.09.2000 and Sevi Gounder died on 16.11.2004. The plaintiff also claimed that a portion of Item 2 was sold to one Murugesan and Mahalakshmi by the plaintiff, as well as the first defendant jointly. The suit was resisted by the first defendant, contending that the plaintiff has not added another co-parcenor namely the wife of a pre-deceased son of Sevi Gounder by name Chinnaiya Gounder. It was also contended that there was an oral partition effected by Sevi Gounder himself during his life time in which specific portions of the property were allotted to the parties and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition. It was a further contention that after the sale of 1.14 acres of land in Item 2 of the suit properties, the entire sale consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs was received by the plaintiff, which according to the first defendant would affirm the oral partition effected by Sevi Gounder even during his life time.

3.3 It was also claimed that Sevi Gounder had executed a Will in the year 1982, bequeathing Item 3 of the suit properties to him and therefore, he would be entitled to the entire Item 3 to the exclusion of the other heirs. On the above pleadings, the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. In order to rectify the defect of non-joinder raised by the first defendant, the second defendant was impleaded as a party to the suit. The second defendant is none other than the widow of one of the sons of the Sevi Gounder namely Chinnaiyan, who is said to have died in the year 1968. The second defendant, upon impleading, filed a written statement contending that she is entitled to 3^rd share in the suit properties. The oral partition claimed by the first defendant was also disputed.

5. The claim of the plaintiff that the second defendant had married the first defendant, after the death of her husband and she is living with him as his wife was also dis