The absolute vesting of property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, could not be divested, and the widow of a Hindu male inherits her share absolutely, as per Section 14 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. RATH, J.

The defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for partition between the mother and daughter.

2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the suit land belonged to her husband Sadhu Sahu. The defendant is their daughter. Her husband died in the year 1976. After death of her husband, she remarried to Chaitanya Sahu. As widow of Sadhu, she has a share in the suit land.

3. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property of Sadhu after her remarriage to Chaitanya Sahu.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck three issues. The parties led evidence both oral and documentary. In an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that once the property has been vested in plaintiff upon death of her first husband, the same cannot be divested on remarrying to Chaitanya Sahu and, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to half share over the suit schedule property. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant appealed before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and renumbered as Title Appeal No.43/8 of 1999-2000. The appeal was eventually dismissed.

5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 declaring that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner sets at naught Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, providing that a Hindu widow after remarriage will cease to have any right or interest in husband’s property as if she had died.”

6. Heard Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Kar, learned Advocate for the respondent.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant would urge that the plaintiff upon her remarriage met a civil death. Her right in deceased husband’s property cease on her remarriage in view of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856.

8. Per contra, Mr. Kar, learned Advocate for the respondent would urge that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has an overriding effect and abrogates the operation of 1856 Act. Once the property vested, the same cannot be divested. The plaintiff has half share over the suit property.

9. The Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 Act (‘1856 Act’) was enacted to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows. Section 2 of 1856 Act reads thus:

“2. Rights of widow in deceased husband’s property 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 permission to remarry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as if she had then died; and the next heir of her deceased husband or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.”

10. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’) reads as under:

“4. Overriding effect of Act.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-

(a) Any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) Any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.”

11. Section 2 of 1856 Act and Sections 4 and 24 of 1956 Act were the subject matter of interpretation before the Ape