LexATMA SINGH versus GURMEJ KAUR (D) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B / [2017] 8 S.C.R. 904 ATMA SINGH v. GURMEJ KAUR (D) & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11094 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 13,2107 [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.8 - Intestate succession - By the mother - To the estate of C her deceased son born out of her first marriage - Permissibility - Held: The mother being the sole class I heir uls. 8, would naturally succeed to the estate of her deceased son through first marriage - Succession u!s. 8 is not controlled by s.2 of Hindu Widows Re- marriage Act, 1856 - s.4 of 1956 Act also gives an overriding effect D to the 1956 Act - Hence s.2 would not disentitle the mother (on account of her re-marriage) to inherit the estate of her son - Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856 - s.2 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The son of defendant No. 1 died intestate and E succession is to be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The mother i.e. defendant No. 1 being Class I heir under Section 8 and there being no other class I heir avail- able to succeed mother, she naturally succeeded the estate of her son by virtue of Section 8 read with the Schedule, Class I. F [Paras 9 and 10) [908-G-H; 909-CJ 2. The consequence of Section 2 of Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856, 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 re-marriage cease and determine as if she had then died. Thus, on re-marriage, the G 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, re-marriage took place in the year 1952. Thus, the widow has lost right in the property of her husband or any lineal descendants on re-marriage. Section 2 further provides H 904 ATMA SINGH v. GURMEJ KAUR (D) & ORS. 905 that on cessation and determination of rights of widow, the next A 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 possessing at the time of re-marriage. [Para 11) [909-E-G] 3. In the present case, the succession opened in the year B 1972 when the son of defendant No. 1 died. Succession of estate ·of deceased son of defendant No. 1 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 re- C marriage of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 shall continue to be the mother of 'P', who was born to her from her first husband. Succession under Section 8 to the estate of 'P' by defendant No.1 shall not be controlled or prohibited by Section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Re-Marriage Act, 1856. It is true that all rights in her husband's property or property oflineal successors of her husband D were lost by a widow on her re-marriage. But Section 2 shall not govern or regulate any future succession to which she may be entitled under law. The Hindu Widow's Re-Marriage Act, 1856 has been subsequently repealed by the Hindu Widow's Re- Marriage (Repeal) Act, 1983. Even though, in the year 1972, the 1856 Act was in force, but the said provision shall not control the E .succession as ordained by Section. 8 of the 1956 Act. [Para 12) (909-H; 910-A-D] 4. In Section 4 of the 1956 Act, 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 F inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the 1956 Act. Even for the arguments sake, if 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. [Para 13) [910-E) G 5. Section 2 of the 1856 Act in no manner affects the right of defendant No.1 to succeed the estate of her son and after the death of her son, she was rightly held to succeed his properties. [Para 15) [912-D] H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20I7] 8 S.C.R. A Smt. Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 674 : (19771 2 SCR 25 - relied on. B Case Law Reference [1977) 2 SCR 25 relied on Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I I 094 of2017. From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.