SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(P&H) 729

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Garja Singh
Versus
Surjit Kaur
Second Appeal No. 1560 of 1978,
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 1990

A marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is valid only if it is solemnized with the customary rights and ceremonies.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - S.5, 7 - VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE - CONDITIONS - CUSTOMARY CEREMONIES - PROOF - ESSENTIAL CEREMONIES - SOLEMNIZATION - CUSTOMARY RIGHTS - PROOF - RELATIONSHIP - CONCUBINE - CONSIDERATION - SUCCESSION - NEAREST HEIRS.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs claimed to be the grandsons of the deceased's father's brother and produced a will allegedly executed by the deceased in their favor. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased through a Karewa marriage, which was denied by the plaintiffs. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that defendant No. 1 was the widow of the deceased. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the marriage between defendant No. 1 and the deceased was not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was not solemnized with the customary rights and ceremonies. The court found that defendant No. 1 had entered into a contract with the deceased, as evidenced by the Karewa Nama, and that she had resided with him as a concubine for a consideration. The court also found that the plaintiffs were the nearest heirs of the deceased and were entitled to succeed to his estate.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the grandsons of the deceased's father's brother? 2. Whether the deceased executed a valid will in favor of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased? 4. Whether the deceased executed a valid will in favor of defendant No. 2? 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is valid only if it is solemnized with the customary rights and ceremonies. In the present case, there was no proof that the marriage between defendant No. 1 and the deceased was solemnized with the customary rights and ceremonies. The court also found that defendant No. 1 had entered into a contract with the deceased, as evidenced by the Karewa Nama, and that she had resided with him as a concubine for a consideration. Therefore, the court held that the marriage between defendant No. 1 and the deceased was not valid and that the plaintiffs were the nearest heirs of the deceased and were entitled to succeed to his estate.

Final Decision: The High Court reversed the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decreed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.

Judgment

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which, on appeal, affirmed those of the trial Judge and dismissed their suit for possession of the suit land and also for perpetual injunction. The facts :-

Gulaba (since deceased) was the last male owner of the property in dispute. He died on 5/09/1969. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the grandsons of fathers brother of the deceased. They also set up a will allegedly executed by the deceased on 16/08/1969 in their favour. The relationship of defendant No.1 with the deceased was denied. It was denied that she was validly married to the deceased. Karewa Nama dated 28/10/1965 alleged to have been executed between defendant No.1 and the deceased was merely a paper transaction. In the Karewa Nama it was recited that defendant No. 1 was married to Bishan Singh who had died about four years back. But in fact, said Bishan Singh had died on 22/04/1964. The mutation of inheritance of the deceased was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and this led to the filing of the instant suit.

2. Defendant No. 1 denied the allegations made in the plaint and claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased who had contracted Karewa form of marriage with her. Karewa Nama was executed and registered 28/10/1965. She denied that she was married to Nazar Singh. The Will pleaded by the plaintiffs was forged and fictitious. She denied that the deceased had executed any Will in favour of Nachhattar Singh.

3. Defendant No. 2 Nachhattar Singh also contested the suit and pleaded that a valid Will dated 1/09/1969 was executed by the deceased in his favour. It was also denied that the deceased had executed any valid Will in favour of the plaintiffs. The relationship of the deceased with the plaintiffs was also denied.

4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the grandsons of Atra, real brother of Ratna, father of Gulaba Singh deceased? DPP. 2. Whether Gulaba Singh deceased executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs? DPP. 3. Whether the defendant Surjit Kaut is not the wife of Gulaba deceased? OPP. 4. Whether Gulaba deceased executed a valid will in favour of Nachhattar Singh defendant? OPD-2. 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD-1. 6. Relief.

5. The trial Court held under issue No. 1 that the plaintiffs were the grandsons of Atra, real brother of Ratna, father of the deceased; under issue No. 2 it was held that the deceased did not execute a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs; issue No. 3 was answered in favour of defendant No. 1 and it was held that she was the widow of the deceased; issue No. 4 was decided against defendant No. 2 Nachhattar Singh; issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit was maintainable. In view of the findings under issues Nos. 2 and 3, the suit was dismissed.

6. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Judge under issues Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 2 did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial Court in first appeal.

7. In the second appeal, the parties have principally assailed the finding of the first appellate Court holding that defendant No. 1 was the legally married wife of the deceased. The facts which stand established on record may briefly be summarised :

(i) Karewa Nama dated 28/10/1965 (Ex. D-4) was executed by the deceased and defendant No. 1. In the Karewa Nama, it was recited that the father of defendant No. 1 soleminised the marriage of defendant No. 1 with one Bishan Singh of village Khanpur about 10 years ago who died four years back (from the date of execution of this document). No issue was born out of this wedlock. She being a widow performed Karewa marriage with Gulab Singh (since deceased);

(ii) Bishan Singh, the first husband of defendant No. 1, died on 22/04/1964 and death entry to this













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top