1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11094 OF 2017
(arising out of SLP(C)No.22154 of 2012)
ATMA SINGH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
GURMEJ KAUR (D) ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment
of the Punjab Haryana High Court dated 14.07.2009
by which the High Court has dismissed the Regular
Second Appeal filed by the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and
lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant has
filed Civil Suit No. 220 of 2001 for a declaration
that the plaintiff is the owner and in joint
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
possession of the half share of the land owned by
Date: 2017.09.20
10:28:12 IST
Reason:
Pal Singh deceased son of Narain Singh. Narain Singh
2
had three sons namely Atma Singh, the appellant,
Mohan Singh, respondent No.5 and Pal Singh. The
defendant No.1, Gurmej Kaur was wife of Narain
Singh. Narain Singh, who was the owner of land in
dispute died in the year 1952 intestate. He left
behind his above three sons and wife Gurmej Kaur.
Gurmej Kaur immediately after death of Narain Singh
remarried with one Inder Singh. Pal Singh, son of
Narain Singh died in the year 1972 intestate. He
was not married and so had no children. Estate of
Pal Singh was mutated in favour of Gurmej Kaur, his
mother. Thereafter, Suit No. 220 of 2001
was filed by the appellant. The Trial Court
dismissed the suit holding that defendant No. 1,
Gurmej Kaur being the real mother of deceased Pal
Singh and she being Class I heir shall succeed to
Pal Singh after his death. The appeal was filed by
the appellant, which too was dismissed on
07.02.2006, against which second appeal was filed.
The High Court in its judgment reaffirmed the
decision of Court below. The High Court held that
3
although after death of Narain Singh, Gurmej Kaur,
on account of her remarriage will loose right in
estate of Narain Singh but have every right to
inherit the estate of her son, Pal Singh in terms of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The
plaintiff appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the
High Court have come up in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
the appeal contends that after remarriage, Gurmej
Kaur loses her right to inherit the property of
Narain Singh as well as his lineal descendants.
Hence she was not entitled to inherit the estate of
Pal Singh. It is submitted that Courts below did not
advert to The Hindu Widow’s ReMarriage Act, 1856,
which clearly disentitle the defendant No.1 to
inherit the estate of Pal Singh. It is submitted
that in the year 1972 when Pal Singh died, the Hindu
Window’s ReMarriage Act, 1856 was in force and
defendant No.1 was not entitled to inherit the
property of Narain Singh i.e. property of father of
the deceased but was entitled to inherit the estate
4
of Pal Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the
submission of the counsel for the appellant and
contended that the provisions of the Hindu Widow’s
ReMarriage Act, 1856 are no longer applicable in
view of the overriding effect given to the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 under Section 4 of the 1956
Act. He submits that the defendant No.1 being
natural mother of Pal Singh has rightly been held to
inherit his estate under the 1956 Act.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
6. The issue to be considered in the present
appeal is as to whether the Hindu Widow’s
ReMarriage Act, 1856 disentitles the defendant
No.1 to inherit the estate of Pal Singh. For
answering the aforesaid issue, we need to examine
the provisions of the Hindu Widow’s ReMarriage Act,
1856.
5
7. The Hindu Widow’s ReMarriage Act, 1856 was
enacted to remove all legal obstacles to the
marriage of the Hindu Widows. The Act was enacted
to render remarriage valid to legalize the
legitimacy of the children. It conferred a benefit
on those who could not marry but at the same time
imposes a restriction on them. Section 2 of the Act
on which reliance have been placed is as follows:
“2 Rights of widow in deceased husband’s
property to cease on her remarriage.All
rights and interests which any widow may
have in her deceased husband’s property by
way of maintenance, or by inheritance to
her husband or to his lineal successors, or
by virtue of any will or testamentary
disposition conferring upon her, without
express permission to remarry, only a
limited interest in such property, with
no power of alienating the same, shall
upon her remarriage cease and determine
as if she had then died; and the next
heirs of her deceased husband, or other
persons entitled to the property on her
death, shall thereupon succeed to the
same.”
8. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted to
amend and codify the law relating to intestate
succession among Hindus. Section 4 of the Act gave
6
the enactment an overriding effect. Section 4 is
quoted as below:
“4. Overriding effect of Act.
(1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act,
(a) any text, rule or interpretation
of Hindu law or any custom or usage
as part of that law in force
immediately before the commencement
of this Act shall cease to have
effect with respect to any matter for
which provision is made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force
immediately before the commencement
of this Act shall cease to apply to
Hindus in so far as it is
inconsistent with any of the
provisions contained in this Act.”
9. In the present case, we have to decide the
right of inheritance of the estate, which was left
by Pal Singh, who died in the year 1972. Pal Singh
died intestate and succession is to be governed by
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which
is as follows:
“8. General rules of succession
in the case of males.—The property
of a male Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to
the provisions of this Chapter—
7
(a) firstly, upon the heirs,
being the relatives specified in
class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir
of class I, then upon the heirs,
being the relatives specified in
class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir
of any of the two classes, then
upon the agnates of the deceased;
and
(d) lastly, if there is no
agnate, then upon the cognates
of the deceased.
10. The mother being Class I heir under Section 8
and there being no other class I heir available to
succeed mother, she naturally succeed the estate of
Pal Singh by virtue of Section 8 read with the
Schedule, Class I. Whether provision of Section 2 of
the 1856 Act disentitles the defendant No.1 to
succeed the estate of Pal Singh, is the submission
forcefully put up by learned counsel for the
appellant. It is submitted that on remarriage, the
widow ceases to have any right of maintenance or
inheritance to her husband or his lineal successors.
8
It is submitted that Pal Singh being lineal
successor of husband of defendant No.1, she is also
disentitled to succeed the estate of Pal Singh.
11. The consequence of Section 2 on the right of
widow, who remarries has been clearly enumerated.
Section 2 provides that all rights and interests,
which any widow may have in her deceased husband’s
property or to his lineal successors shall upon her
remarriage cease and determine as if she had then
died. Thus, on remarriage, the widow is divested
with any right which she may have in the husband’s
property or property of husband’s lineal successors.
In the present case, remarriage took place in the
year 1952. Thus, the widow has lost any right in
the property of her husband or any lineal
descendants on remarriage. Section 2 further
provides that on cessation and determination of
rights of widow, the next heirs of her deceased
husband or other persons entitled to the property
shall succeed the same. The effect of Section 2 was
thus confined to rights which the widow was
9
possessing at the time of remarriage.
12. In the present case, the succession has opened
in the year 1972 when Pal Singh died. The question
which had cropped up in the present case regarding
succession of estate of Pal Singh and succession of
Pal Singh’s estate shall be governed by Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. By Section 8, the
mother i.e. defendant No.1 being described in Class
I of the Schedule shall inherit the property
excluding other heirs. Even after remarriage of
defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 shall continue to
be the mother of Pal Singh, who was born to her from
her first husband Narain Singh. Succession under
Section 8 to the estate of Pal Singh by defendant
No.1 shall not be controlled or prohibited by
Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s ReMarriage Act,
1856. It is true that all rights in her husband’s
property or property of lineal successors of her
husband were lost by a widow on her remarriage.
But Section 2 shall not govern or regulate any
future succession to which she may be entitled under
10
law. The Hindu Widow’s ReMarriage Act, 1856 has
been subsequently repealed by the Hindu Widow’s
ReMarriage (Repeal) Act. 1983. Even though, in the
year 1972, the 1856 Act was in force but as noted
above, the said provision shall not control the
succession as ordained by Section 8 of the 1956 Act.
13. Coming to Section 4 of the 1956 Act, where an
overriding effect has been given to the 1956 Act to
any other law in force immediately before the
commencement of the 1956 Act in so far as it is
inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in
the 1956 Act. Even for the arguments sake, it is
accepted that Section 2 of the 1856 Act have any
cascading effect on the right of widow, the same
shall be treated to have overridden by virtue of
Section 8 read with Schedule to the 1956 Act.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others, (1976) 4 SCC 674, this
Court while considering the Hindu Succession Act,
11
1956 held that mother cannot be divested of her
interest in her son’s property either on the ground
of unchastity or remarriage. One Madhua died in the
year 1960 whose wife was Kasturi. Kasturi remarried
with one Lekhraj in the year 1963. Karua who was son
of Madhua and Kasturi died in the year of 1970. The
question arose about the inheritance of property of
Karua. The claim of Kasturi, the appellant was
rejected by the High Court against which she has
filed the appeal. This Court has held that Kasturi
could not have been divested of her right to inherit
estate of her son. In paragraph 3 of the judgment
following was held:
“3. We may now examine the
contentions raised by counsel for the
appellant. Counsel submitted that
assuming that Kasturi had remarried
Lekhraj she had acquired an absolute
interest in the property and no
question of divestment of the
property could arise in view of the
provisions of the Hindu Succession
Act. Secondly, it was argued that
Kasturi in the instant case put
forward her claim for inheritance not
as widow of Madhua but as mother of
Karua, because it was the property of
Karua which was in dispute. In the
12view that we take in the present
appeal, it is not necessary at all to
decide as to whether or not Kasturi
would be disinherited or divested of
the property even after having
acquired an absolute interest under
the Hindu law. This is a moot
question and not free from
difficulty. We will, however, assume
for the sake of argument that as wife
of Madhua Kasturi might be divested
of her interest on her remarriage
with Lekhraj. It is plain, however,
in this case that the dispute arises
over the property of Karua and qua
Karua’s property, Kasturi claimed
inheritance not as a widow of her
husband Madhua but as the mother of
Karua. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation seemed to think that
the bar of inheritance would apply to
a mother as much as to a widow and on
this ground he refused to accept the
claim of the appellant. Learned
counsel for the respondents supported
the stand taken by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. We are,
however, unable to agree with the
view taken by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation which appears to be
contrary to the written text of the
Hindu Law. Mulla in his Hindu Law,
14th Edn. while describing the
incidents of a mother regarding
inheritance under clause (iii)
observed at p. 116 as follows:
“(iii) Unchastity and remarriage.—
Unchastity of a mother is no bar to
her succeeding as heir to her son,
nor does remarriage constitute any
such bar.”
13
A large number of authorities have
been cited in support of this
view. We find ourselves entirely
in agreement with this view. Our
attention has not been invited to
any text of the Hindu Law under
which a mother could be divested
of her interest in the property
either on the ground of unchastity
or remarriage. We feel that the
application of bar of inheritance
to the Hindu widow is based on the
special and peculiar, sacred and
spiritual relationship of the wife
and the husband. After the
marriage, the wife becomes an
absolute partner and an integral
part of her husband and the
principle on which she is excluded
from inheritance on remarriage is
that when she relinquishes her
link with her husband even though
he is dead and enters a new
family, she is not entitled to
retain the property inherited by
her. The same, however, cannot be
said of a mother. The mother is in
an absolutely different position
and that is why the Hindu Law did
not provide that even the mother
would be disinherited if she
remarried.
15. We thus are of the view that Section 2 of the
1956 Act in no manner affect the right of defendant
No.1 to succeed the estate of her son Pal Singh and
after the death of Pal Singh, she was rightly held
14
to succeed the properties of Pal Singh. The suit
filed by the plaintiff has been correctly dismissed
by all the Courts below. We thus do not find any
merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
……………………..J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
……………………..J.
NEW DELHI, ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017.
15
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).11094/2017
ATMA SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GURMEJ KAUR (D) AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 13-09-2017 This appeal was called on for
pronouncement of judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ambreesh Kumar Aggarwal, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR
Ms. Nidhi, AOR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced
the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble
Mr.Justice A.K. Sikri and His Lordship.
Appeal is dismissed in terms of signed
Reportable judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(B.PARVATHI) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)