( 1. ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court after reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

( 2. ) THE following facts as found by the Courts below were not in dispute before this Court:

(i) That Chhabilal and Samayalal were real brothers. Respondent-defendant No. 1 Mankunwar Bai is the widow of Samayalal. (ii) The suit land belonged to Chhablal. On his death, the same was inherited by his son Udal. Dukalabai was the widow of Chhabilal, but she had remarried during the life time of Udal as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement. (iii) Udal died in the year 1957 and his wife Ratni Bai had already remarried.

( 3. ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, Dukala Bai the mother of Udal claimed the suit land on the ground that on the death of Udal, she was the only heir to inherit the property left by him being his mother inasmuch as ratni Bai the wife of Udal had already remarried. (During the pendency of this second appeal, however, Dukala Bai died and Ratni Bai has been substituted in her place ). Thus, the claim made in the plaint was that, after the death of Udal, Mankunwar Bai could not get any right, title or interest on the suit land left by Udal and the same devolved on Dukala Bai, being the mother of Udal.

( 4. ) MST. Mankunwar Bai, claiming herself to be the owner after the death of Udal, had transferred the suit land in favour of respondent-defendant no. 2 Chitgovind.

( 5. ) THE case of the defendant was that since Dukala Bai had already remarried, she lost all her rights to inherit the suit land even after the death of udal, because the property was originally of Chhablal, her first husband. The remarriage of Dukala Bai deprived her of all the rights to inherit the suit property and, therefore, Mst. Mankunwar Bai, beidg the widow of Samayalal, who was the brother of Chhablal and was the only heir to inherit and as such, she became the rightful owner and the alienation made by her in favour of defendant No. 2 was valid. The contention of the defendant found favour with the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court was of the opinion that Mst. Dukala Bai, upon her remarriage, was divested of her husbands property and, therefore, she could not inherit the same even after the death of udal, her son.

( 6. ) ON behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the lower appellate court erred in law in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The argument was that, after the death of Udal, Mst. Dukala Bai inherited the suit land not as the widow of Chhablal, but as the mother of Udal, and, therefore, her remarriage during the life time of Udal did not come in her way to inherit the suit land.

( 7. ) IN my opinion, the lower appellate Court was definitely under grave error of law in concluding that Mst. Dukala Bai could not inherit the suit land even after the death of her son Udal on the ground that she had remarried irrespective of the fact that the son died after her remarriage.

( 8. ) DOES a mother claim a right on her sons property on the basis that she was the wife of the father of her deceased son ? I think the answer is no. As a matter of fact, she succeeds to the property of her son as his mother. She does not cease to be a mother only because she has taken second husband. In the present case, at the time of remarriage of Mst. Dukala Bai, the suit property belonged to her son and at that time, she had only the limited interest in the said property. The effect of her remarriage was that she was divested of her limited interest. Her remarriage did not destroy the relationship by blood, i. e. of mother and son. Thus, there is a difference in the case of a widow claiming inheritance to her deceased husband and that of inheritance to her son. The remarriage will disentitle the widow-to inherit the property from her husband but it will not disentitle her to inherit the property of her son, being the mother