Parshanti Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 857 of 1992)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 857 of 1992)
Petitioner: Parshanti
Respondent: Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 857 of 1992)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 857 of 1992)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I., K.S. PARIPOORNAN & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 19, 1997
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 |
Section 171(b) – Hindu Widow – Right to Property – Hindu widow remarrying another person – Whether has a right to claim property of her son through the first marriage. Held U.P. Act of 1950 excluded a widowed mother who has remarried. Further the Act being a special law the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on the same point under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 would not be applicable. Section 171(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 clearly excluded a widowed mother who has remarried from laying any claim to the properties of the son. This Act being a special law, the decision rendered under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 by the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1977) 2 SCR 25 will have no applicability.
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 |
Section 171(b) – Hindu Widow – Right to Property – Hindu widow remarrying another person – Whether has a right to claim property of her son through the first marriage. Held U.P. Act of 1950 excluded a widowed mother who has remarried. Further the Act being a special law the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on the same point under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 would not be applicable. Section 171(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 clearly excluded a widowed mother who has remarried from laying any claim to the properties of the son. This Act being a special law, the decision rendered under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 by the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1977) 2 SCR 25 will have no applicability.
Cases Reffered:
1. Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1977) 2 SCR 25
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a Hindu widow who after the death of her husband remarries anoth-er person can lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage, if that property happens to be agricultural land. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a deci-sion of a three-Judge Bench in Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1977) 2 SCR 25. This Court applying the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on principles gov-erning Hindu law answered the question in the affirmative stating that in such a situation she is not claiming as the widow of her first husband but is laying a claim as the mother of the prede-ceased son. Their Lordships did not apply the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the facts of that case or their Lordships’ attention was not drawn to the special law, Section 171(b) whereof, in terms, excludes a widowed mother, who has remarried. The plain language of this provision in the special law, therefore, clearly excludes the widowed mother, who has remarried, from claiming a share by inheritance from the property of her son born through the first husband. That being so, in the facts of this case, the decision in Kasturi Devi case does not apply. In that case, this Court was not applying the provisions of Section 171(b) of the U.P. law. We are, there-fore, of the opinion that the authorities below were right in holding that in view of this special provision her claim was not justified.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a Hindu widow who after the death of her husband remarries anoth-er person can lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage, if that property happens to be agricultural land. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a deci-sion of a three-Judge Bench in Kasturi Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1977) 2 SCR 25. This Court applying the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on principles gov-erning Hindu law answered the question in the affirmative stating that in such a situation she is not claiming as the widow of her first husband but is laying a claim as the mother of the prede-ceased son. Their Lordships did not apply the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the facts of that case or their Lordships’ attention was not drawn to the special law, Section 171(b) whereof, in terms, excludes a widowed mother, who has remarried. The plain language of this provision in the special law, therefore, clearly excludes the widowed mother, who has remarried, from claiming a share by inheritance from the property of her son born through the first husband. That being so, in the facts of this case, the decision in Kasturi Devi case does not apply. In that case, this Court was not applying the provisions of Section 171(b) of the U.P. law. We are, there-fore, of the opinion that the authorities below were right in holding that in view of this special provision her claim was not justified.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.
