- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uma Sahu v. Sabitri Sahu
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit was for partition between a mother (plaintiff-respondent) and her daughter (defendant-appellant). The plaintiff claimed a share in the suit land that belonged to her deceased first husband, Sadhu Sahu, who died in 1976. After his death, the plaintiff remarried Chaitanya Sahu. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the plaintiff lost any right to the property upon remarriage. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s right to the property vested upon the death of her first husband and could not be divested by remarriage, granting her half share of the property. The defendant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge and subsequently by the Additional District Judge. The defendant then filed a further appeal raising a substantial question of law regarding the interplay between the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which declares that property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner, overrides Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, which provides that a Hindu widow after remarriage ceases to have any right or interest in her deceased husband's property as if she had died.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff, upon remarriage, met a civil death and her rights in the deceased husband's property ceased under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.
Respondent's Arguments
- Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has an overriding effect and abrogates the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.
- Once the property vested in the plaintiff, it cannot be divested by remarriage.
- The plaintiff is entitled to half share of the suit property.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs v. Cherottee Bharathi (2008) 2 SCC 610 | Interpretation of Sections 2 of 1856 Act and Sections 4 and 24 of 1956 Act regarding widow’s rights and remarriage. | The Apex Court held that Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act grants full ownership to female Hindus over property possessed, and Section 4 of the 1956 Act has overriding effect over the 1856 Act, thus the widow’s remarriage does not divest her rights. |
| Chando Mehtain v. Khublal Mahto, AIR 1983 Patna 33 | Effect of Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 and its relation with Hindu Succession Act, 1956. | Held that the 1856 Act was not repealed but Section 4 of the 1956 Act has overriding effect, abrogating the operation of the 1856 Act to the extent of inconsistency. |
| Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 4 SCC 674 | Whether remarriage or unchastity divests a mother of her interest in deceased son’s property. | The Supreme Court held that remarriage does not divest a mother of her interest in the deceased son’s property. |
| Thankam v. Rajan, AIR 1999 Kerala 62 | Effect of remarriage on widow’s right to succeed to deceased husband’s property. | The Kerala High Court held that remarriage cannot be a ground for a widow to lose her right to succeed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the conflict between the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It noted that Section 2 of the 1856 Act provides that a widow loses all rights in her deceased husband's property upon remarriage, effectively treating her as if she had died. However, Section 4 of the 1956 Act explicitly provides that any prior law inconsistent with the 1956 Act shall cease to apply to Hindus. The court relied on authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Cherotte Sugathan, which interpreted Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act as granting full ownership of property to female Hindus and held that the 1956 Act overrides the 1856 Act in cases of conflict. The court also referenced decisions from the Patna High Court, Supreme Court, and Kerala High Court affirming that remarriage does not divest a widow of her property rights. Applying these principles, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s right to the property vested absolutely upon the death of her first husband in 1976 and could not be divested by her subsequent remarriage. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property.
Holding and Implications
The court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the trial court’s decree that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property.
The direct consequence of this decision is that a Hindu widow’s property rights vested under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not extinguished by remarriage, effectively rendering Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 inoperative to the extent of inconsistency. No new precedent was created as the question was held to be settled by prior authoritative rulings.
A.K Rath, J.:— The defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for partition between the mother and daughter.
2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the suit land belonged to her husband Sadhu Sahu. The defendant is their daughter. Her husband died in the year 1976. After death of her husband, she remarried to Chaitanya Sahu. As widow of Sadhu, she has a share in the suit land.
3. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property of Sadhu after her remarriage to Chaitanya Sahu.
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck three issues. The parties led evidence both oral and documentary. In an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that once the property has been vested in plaintiff upon death of her first husband, the same cannot be divested on remarrying to Chaitanya Sahu and, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to half share over the suit schedule property. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant appealed before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and renumbered as Title Appeal No. 43/8 of 1999-2000. The appeal was eventually dismissed.
5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 declaring that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner sets at naught Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, providing that a Hindu widow after remarriage will cease to have any right or interest in husband's property as if she had died.”
6. Heard Mr. G.N Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.K Kar, learned Advocate for the respondent.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant would urge that the plaintiff upon her remarriage met a civil death. Her right in deceased husband's property cease on her remarriage in view of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856.
8. Per contra, Mr. Kar, learned Advocate for the respondent would urge that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has an overriding effect and abrogates the operation of 1856 Act. Once the property vested, the same cannot be divested. The plaintiff has half share over the suit property.
9. The Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 Act (‘1856 Act’) was enacted to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows. Section 2 of 1856 Act reads thus:
“2. Rights of widow in deceased husband's property 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 heir of her deceased husband or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.”
10. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’) reads as under:
“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.”
11. Section 2 of 1856 Act and Sections 4 and 24 of 1956 Act were the subject matter of interpretation before the Apex Court in the case of Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs v. Cherottee Bharathi, (2008) 2 SCC 610 : AIR 2008 SC 1467. The apex Court held thus:
“11. The Act brought about a sea change in Shastric Hindu Law. Hindu widows were brought on equal footing in the matter of inheritance and succession along with the male heirs. Section 14(1) stipulates that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, will be held by her as a full owner thereof.
Section 24, as it then stood, reads as under:
“24. Certain widows remarrying may not inherit as widows.- Any heir who is related to an intestate as the widow of a pre-deceased son, the widow of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased son or the widow of a brother shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate as such widow, if on the date the succession opens, she has remarried.”
13. xxxxxxxxx
Section 4 of the 1956 Act has an overriding effect. The provisions of 1956 Act, thus, shall prevail over the text of any Hindu Law or the provisions of 1856 Act. Section 2 of the 1856 Act would not prevail over the provisions of the 1956 Act having regard to Section 4 and 24 thereof.
14. The question posed before us is no longer res integra.
In Chando Mehtain v. Khublal Mahto [AIR 1983 Patna 33], the Patna High Court opined:
“The Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856 has not been repealed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but Section 4 of the latter Act has an overriding effect and in effect abrogates the operation of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856. According to Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act all existing laws whether in the shape of enactments or otherwise shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as they are inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.”
In Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation [(1976) 4 SCC 674 : AIR 1976 SC 2595], this Court categorically held that a mother cannot be divested of her interest in the deceased son's property either on the ground of unchastity or remarriage.
Kerala High Court, in Thankam… v. Rajan…. [AIR 1999 Kerala 62], held that remarriage of the wife cannot be a ground for her loosing right to succeed to her deceased husband is property.”
(emphasis laid)
12. Sadhu died in the year 1976. Upon death of Sadhu, his share vested in the plaintiff and defendant. The right of the plaintiff has to be determined with reference to the time when Sadhu died. Such absolute vesting of property could not be subjected to divestment. The 1956 Act in terms of Section 8 permits the widow of a Hindu male to inherit simultaneously with the son, daughter and other heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule. The widow of a Hindu male takes her share absolutely and not the widow's estate only in terms of Section 14. The 1956 Act had its full play on the date of her remarriage. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Alert