Back
Allahbad High Court
R.S.SINGH
Indrapati - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation - Respondent
Decided On : 10/17/1979
HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 3 - SHARE OF WIDOW IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW - EFFECT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indrapati, claimed co-tenure-holder status in four khatas (landholdings) that were in dispute. The respondents, including Girja Shankar, contested her claim, alleging that she had remarried and thus lost her rights to the property inherited from her previous husband. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found no evidence of remarriage and upheld Indrapati's claim. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed their decision, finding that Indrapati had remarried based on entries in the voters' list and the birth of a child after her previous husband's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation's finding of remarriage was not supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law. The court found that the formalities of remarriage according to Hindu law, such as Saptapadi (seven steps), were not proven. The court also held that Indrapati was entitled to inherit a share in the joint family property of her father-in-law, Ram Dular, under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, Indrapati, had remarried, resulting in the loss of her rights to the property inherited from her previous husband. 2. Whether Indrapati was entitled to inherit a share in the joint family property of her father-in-law, Ram Dular.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, and held that remarriage of a Hindu widow results in the loss of her rights in the property inherited from her previous husband. However, the court emphasized that remarriage must be strictly proven, and mere cohabitation or living as husband and wife is not sufficient. 2. The court interpreted Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and held that a widow is entitled to inherit a share in the joint family property of her father-in-law, even if her husband predeceased his father. The court clarified that Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 applies to the widow of the deceased as well as to the widow of the pre-deceased son, but is confined only to separate property. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 applies only to the widow and not to the son's widow, irrespective of separate or joint family property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part, upholding Indrapati's claim to a half share in khata No. 116, which was her husband's separate property. The court dismissed the petition regarding the other three khatas, which were joint family property, as Indrapati was not entitled to inherit a share in those properties under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that in the basic year khatauni, on khata No. 116, the name of Indrapati; on khata No. 24, the name of Ram Adhar and Indrapati, on khata No. 46, the name of Baba, Gangadeen, Gingen, Girja Shanker, and Indrapati and on khata No. 234, the name of Ram Adhar and Ram Dular were recorded as tenure-holders. An objection was filed under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Girja Singh, respondent No. 3 claiming to be sole tenure-holder and denying the title of Smt, Indrapati on the ground that she had remarried and her name has been wrongly recorded in the revenue papers, which should be expunged. Another objection was filed by Smt. Indrapati, the petitioner, claiming to be co-tenure-holder of all the aforesaid khatas with half share therein. The relationship between the parties will be clear from the admitted pedigree given below :
3. There is no dispute about the fact that Avadh Behari, husband of Smt. Indrapati, petitioner died before the year 1937, and Ram Dular, the father-in-law of the petitioner died in 1949 when Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act (Act No. XVIII of 1939) was in force. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioner and declared her to be co-tenure-holder in all the disputed khatas with 1/2 share. The Consolidation Officer also recorded a finding that remarriage of Indrapati, as set-up by the respondents, has not been proved. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was partly allowed. The petitioners claims in respect of khata No. 116 for 1/2 share was maintained but the claim of the petitioner for rest of the holdings was rejected. However, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) maintained the finding of Consolidation Officer that no remarriage had taken place.
Two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) one revision was filed by the petitioner and the other revision was filed by respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the petitioner and allowed the revision of Girja Shankar, respondent No. 3. While accepting the revision of the respondent, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also recorded a finding that the remarriage of petitioner has been proved. The effect of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected in respect of all the aforesaid khatas-in-dispute. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation before this court.
4. There were two main questions for consideration in this case. Firstly, whether remarriage of Smt. Indrapati has been proved and secondly, what is the share of Indrapati in the disputed holdings.
5. On the question of remarriage, the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have recorded a finding that no remarriage has been proved in this case whereas according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, re marriage of Indrapati is fully proved. The parties are Brahmins. According to the case of the petitioner, there is no legal evidence to prove remarriage, as required by provisions of law. Whereas, according to the case of the respondents, the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the question of remarriage is correct, which is based on two factors, viz., entry in the voters list and the birth of a child after the death of previous husband.
6. Marriage among Hindus is not a contract but is a sacrament and a Hindu wife has to be with the husband, for a marriage is a holy union, for the performance of religious duties. Under the Hindu Law, a widows right to succession is based on the ground that she is ha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
