The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the mother has the right to inherit the property of the intestate son, and her Karewa marriage does not disqualify her from inheriting the property as the mother, as per Section 24 of the Act.

K.C. Gupta, J. - This regular second appeal is directed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby he accepted the appeal of the defendant (respondent) and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on 24.11.1979.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Bijay Singh s/o Mangal Singh and Smt. Bholi were owners of 1/25th share of agriculture land measuring 75 K 12 M as detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint alongwith all other rights pertaining to it as per Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 situated in the revenue estate of village Bas Lambi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. However, Bijay Singh died unmarried about 9 years prior to the institution of the suit on 18.7.1978 and the appellant (plaintiff) being fathers brother of deceased Bijay Singh was the nearest heir and was entitled to succeed to his estate including the suit land.

3. It was next averred that Smt. Gindori, respondent, was married to Murli, brother of the appellant and after the death of Murli, she performed Karewa marriage with one Ram Parshad of village Manesar, about 29 years ago and started cohabiting with him and had several children out of his loins.

4. It was next averred that the parties were Ahirs by caste and were dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood and were governed by agricultural custom according to which a widow after performing Karewa loses all her rights in the estate of her deceased husband and his family. As such she had lost all her rights in the estate of her husband Murli and had further no right of inheritance in the estate of Bijay Singh, Mangal Singh or any other family member. However, she claimed herself to be the mother of Bijay Singh and in collusion with the revenue authorities got the mutation sanctioned in her favour on 30.3.1978 in respect of the suit land.

5. It was also averred that the appellant asked the respondent several times to get the mutation corrected and to admit him as the owner of the suit land being the nearest heir of Bijay Singh, deceased, but she had refused to do so. With these allegations, suit for declaration, that the appellant was owner in possession of the suit land and the respondent had no right or interest in it, was filed on 18.7.1978.

6. The respondent contested the suit and filed written statement. She took certain preliminary objections, that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the appellant had got no locus-standi to file the suit; that the suit was time barred and that the appellant was estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit. On merits, she denied the allegations of the appellant and stated that she was the widow of Mangal Singh and mother of Bijay Singh, deceased, and being mother she had rightly succeeded to the property of Bijay Singh on his death and was in possession of the same. She further denied that she had performed Karewa marriage with one Ram Parshad or had any children from his loins. She also denied that the parties were governed by agricultural custom in the matter of inheritance etc. She further stated that the mutation was rightly sanctioned in her favour as she was the mother of Bijay Singh, deceased.

7. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were struck on 14.12.1978 :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the preferential heir of Bijay Singh deceased ? If so, to what effect ? OPP

2. Whether defendant is real mother of Bijay Singh deceased ? If so, to what effect ? OPD

3. Whether the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant by a revenue officer is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff for the reasons mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

4. Whether the defendant had performed Karewa with Ram Parshad and thereby forfeited her right in the property left by Bijay Singh ? OPP

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

7. Relief."

8. The parties adduced their evid