( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by mantorabai (defendant) against the confirming judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he held that the defendant-appellant having remarried in Churi form defendant No. 2 Sunder, she has lost all her rights and interests in the property of her former husband Amru.

( 2 ) PARETANBAI (Plaintiff-respondent No. 11 had filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant and respondent No. 2 Sunder from the house as well as the land situated at village Rani Dera left by Amru some 17 years back on his death. She alleged that she was the legally married wife of Ramkhilawan, son of Amru, and Amru on his death, left Ramkhilawan and the appellant, his widow, as his heirs. According to her Mantorabai (appellant) married Sunder (respondent No. 2) some six years before she filed the suit and on account of her remarriage, she lost all her rights and interests to the property of her husband Amru. She further alleged that her husband, Ramkhilawan, died in July 1960, and the appellant had taken possession of the house as well as the land forcibly to which she was not entitled according to law, and hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant-appellant had resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not the widow of her son Ramkhilawan and Amru died some 12 years back, and she being his widow, was entitled to the half of his property along with the son ramkhilawan. She also averred that she had not remarried Sunder (respondent 2), and further alleged that the widow, even if she has gone unchaste, would not lose her rights to the property left by her deceased husband.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, framed as many as six issues on the pleadings of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) is the widow of Ramkhilawan and the defendant-appellant had remarried sunder some six years before filing of the suit and had thus lost her rights to the property left by her husband Amru, and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was entitled to the property in question, and therefore, he decreed the plaintiff's suit and ordered that its vacant possession be given to her. The defendant-appellant went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who also agreed with the opinion of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.

( 5 ) SHRI P. C. Pathak, the learned counsel for the appellant, has invited my attention to Sections 4 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and contended that her remarriage would not stand as a bar in her succeeding to the property in question and she is legally entitled to succeed to the extent of half of the property left by her son Ramkhilawan on his death in July 1960.

( 6 ) SHRI R. K. Varma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, urged that the defendant-appellant had lost all the rights to the property of her husband on her remarriage, and he referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhondu ganpat Kirad v. Ramdayal Govindram Kirad AIR 1960 Madh. Pra 51 and Mst. Bhuri bai v. Mst Champi Bai AIR 1968 Raj 139.

( 7 ) NONE appeared for respondent No. 2.

( 8 ) THE only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to any share in the property left by her intestate son in 1960 even after her remarriage.

( 9 ) I must say at the very outset that the ruling in AIR 1960 Madh. Pra. 51 is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and it is not applicable here. In that case, 3 questions were referred to the Full Bench for opinion, and the question No. 1 which is relevant for our purpose is as follows:--

" (1) Whether the property inherited by a Hindu widow from her son is divested on account of her subsequent remarriage. " the answer to this question given was that a Hindu widow is, upon her remarriage, divested of her husband's property which she has already obtained by