CHEROTTE SUGATHAN (DIED THROUGH LR'S) & ORS. versus CHEROTTE BHARATHI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

"!> 
+ t 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 984 
... 
A 
CHEROTTE SUGATHAN (DIED THROUGH LR'S) & ORS. 
~/ 
II. 
CHEROTTE BHARATHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1323 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 15,2008 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
f.· 
Hindu VV'idow's Remarriage Act, 1856 -
s. 2 -
Hindu 
~' 
Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14 - Right of widow in deceased 
c husband's property - Death of husband in 1976 - After his 
death, his widow remarried -
Suit for partition by widow 
claiming share in property belonging to, father of husband -
Held: She is entitled to decree as on death of her husband, 
his share vested in her absolutely . in terms of s. 14(1) of 
D 1956 Act -
s. 2 of 1856 Act would not prevail over the 
provisions of 1956 Act having regard to ss.4 and 24. 
,.. .. 
' 
One 'SP' executed a Will on 11.10.1975 bequeathing 
his properties in favour his sons and provisions for 
monthly allowance to his wife and also right of residence 
E in the house on 20.10.1975. On 2.8.1976, one son 'P' died. 
His widow-first respondent remarried. She filed a suif on 
31.12.1985 for partition claiming 113rd share in the suit 
property, which was decreed. 
F 
Aggrieved sons of 'SP' filed appeal. The daughters 
of 'SP' also preferred separate appeals on the ground that 
'( ' 
the purported Will was not valid. High Court allowed the 
appeals filed by daughters and remanded the matter to 
trial Court to decide validity of the Will. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended ttiat by 
virtue of s.2 of Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856, the 
'( -
widow of 'S' ceased to have right in the properties 
inherited by her from her husband. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
984 
+-
CHEROTTE SUGATHAN (DIED THROUGH LR'S) & 
985 
ORS. v. CHEROTTE BHARATHI & ORS . 
...... ......__ 
>-- ' 
HELD:1.1 S.14(1) of Hindu Succession Act stipulates 
A 
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. [Para11] [989-E] 
1.2 Upon the death of 'S', his share vested in the first 
B 
respondent absolutely. Such absolute vesting of property 
-~ 
in her could not be subjected to divestment, save and 
_. 
except by reason of a statute. [Para 12] [989-G; 990-A] 
2. In this case, succession had not opened when the 
1956 Act came into force. S.2 of the Hindu Widow's c 
Remarriage Act, 1856 speaks about a limited right but 
when succession opened on 2.8.1976, first respondent 
became an absolute owner of the property by· reason of 
inheritance from her husband in terms of sub-section(1) 
of s.14 of the 1956 Act. S.4 of the 1956 Act has an overriding D 
'-.t 
'"" 
effect. The provisions of 1956 Act, thus, shall prevail over 
I 
the text of any Hindu Law or the provisions of 1856 Act. 
S.2 of the 1856 Act would not prevail over the provisions 
of the 1956 Act having regard to ss.4 and 24 thereof. 
[Para 13] [990-A, B, C] 
E 
3. The Act of 1956 in terms of s.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. As a matter of fact she takes her share 
" ~ 
absolutely and not the widow's estate only in terms of F 
s.14. Remarriage of a widow stands legalized by reason 
of the incorporation of the Act of 1956 but on her 
remarriage she forfeits the right to obtain any benefit from 
out of her deceased husband's estate and s.2 of the Act 
of 1856 is very specific that the estate in that event would G 
---
)' 
pass on to the next heir of her deceased husband as if 
she were dead. Incidentally, the Act of 1856 does not stand 
-
abrogated or repealed by the Succession Act of 1956 and 
it is only by Act 24 of 1983 that the Act stands repealed. 
[Para 15] [991-B, C, D, E] 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 
SC 2595 and Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by LRs. 
v. Kothuri Venkateswar/u(Dead) by LRs & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 
139 - relied on. 
B 
Chando Mehtain & Ors. v. Khublal Mahto & Ors. AIR 1983 
Patna 33 and Thankam v. Rajan AIR 1999 Kerala 62 -
affirmed. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1323 
of 2008. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2003 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in AS No. 645 of 1992 (N). 
K. Rajeev for the Appellants. 
A. Raghunath for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.S. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Whether Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Re-Marriage
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.