ORDER :- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner was married to one Ram Adhin, who had 1/7th share in village Charapur Kauriya, District Unnao. Ram Adhin died on September 14, 1944, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow and his mother Smt. Poona. The petitioner was a minor then. Smt. Poona got her name entered over half the estate of Ram Adhin. She is alleged to have executed a will of her half share on October 28, 1947, in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8, (hereinafter referred to as the 'contesting respondents'), who are the sons of her daughter. She died sometime in 1947 and after her death the contesting respondents got their names mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of the will of Smt. Poona. After the death of her mother-in-law the petitioner married one Beni Lodh.

3. After her remarriage the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif, Unnao, on 18th July, 1949, for possession of the half share of Ram Adhin which was mutated in the name of her mother-in-law, Smt. Poona. The suit was contested by Hira Lal, father of the contesting respondents, who were minors at that time. The pleas that Smt. Poona had executed a will in their favour in respect of her half share and that the petitioner after her remarriage had forfeited all the rights in the estate of her first husband were taken. The Munsif decreed the suit holding that after the death of Ram Adhin, the petitioner succeeded to his estate to the exclusion of the deceased's mother and further that her remarriage was according to the custom prevailing in that community and as such she did not forfeit her rights in the estate of her deceased husband under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856. There was an appeal by the respondents against the decree of the Munsif, but the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Unnao. There was no second appeal.

4. The petitioner alleges that although she was in possession of the estate of her late husband, the names of the contesting respondents continued to be recorded in the village papers along with the petitioner. She accordingly made an application for correction of the record, which was rejected. Thereupon she filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The land in dispute is comprised of bhumidhari and sirdari plots. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit with respect to bhumidhari plots, but dismissed it with respect to sirdari plots on the ground that although the plaintiff succeeded to the bhumidhari plots as the widow of her late husband, she could not so succeed in respect of sirdari plots, because of the provisions contained in Section 36 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. There were two appeals. One by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants. The two appeals were consolidated and disposed of by a common order of the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. The plaintiff's suit was decreed in toto and the defendants' appeal was dismissed. Thereupon a second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal and has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by an order dated February 4, 1970. This petition is directed against that order of the Board of Revenue.

5. So far as bhumidari plots are concerned, there can be no manner of doubt that the plaintiff became their owner on the death in 1944 of her first husband. Admittedly these plots belonged to him. On his death, the plaintiff became the sole heir of his estate. His mother Smt. Poona had no share in it as under the law the entire estate of the deceased devolved upon the widow to the exclusion of his mother. The mutation of the name of Smt. Poona over this property was, therefore, wrong and consequently the will executed by her in favour of the contesting respondents was wholly ineffective.

6. The only question that required consideration was with regard to the effect of remarriage of the petitioner. Under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document