HIRA versus KASTURIBAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 03-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
HIRA 
A 
v. 
KASTURIBAI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 
(N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act: 
Sections 54, 63, 64, 65-Death of Pucca tenant-His wife becoming 
pucca; tenant-On her remarriage whether for-feited her right-Held, C 
yes-Provisions of the tenancy Act not deemed to have been eclipsed or 
obliterated by over 1iding effect of Succession Act-S.4 of Succession Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 3968 of 
1988~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8. 88 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 61of 1976. 
KN. Shukla and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
D 
N.N. Goswamy, Ms. Indu Goswamy, Sakesh Kumar and SK Ag-
E 
niliotri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was ddivered : 
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant to the suit in 
question. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter to be ·referred to as the F 
'respondents') filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the registered 
sale deed dated November 12, 1960 executed by their mother (respondent 
No. 3) in favour of the appellant was inv.alid because on that Clate she had 
no title over the lands in question. On behalf of the respondents it was 
asserted that their mother after the death of their father, Khuman Singh G 
some time in the year 1955-56 remarried in the year 1958 and because of 
that she forfeited the right to the lands which had devolved on her as 
widow. 
There is no dispute that Khuman Singh, the father of the respondents 
was a pakka tenant in respect of 23 Bighas of land in Khata No. 27 which H 
489 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
is the subject matter in dispute. He died some time in the year 1955-56· 
before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred 
to as the 'Succession Act'). According to the respondents, their mother had 
become a pakka tenant after the death of their father under the provisions 
of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be 
B 
c 
referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'), but as she remarried in the year 1958, 
she forfeited the right of pakka tenant and as such she could not have 
transferred the lands through the registered sak deed in favour of the 
appellant on November 12, 1960. The transfer was questioned by the 
respondents saying that under the provisions of the Tenancy Act after 
remarriage, their mother forfeited her right over the lands in question, and 
such lands devolved on the respondents. 
The trial court decreed the suit holding that the mother of the 
respondents had no right, title or interest over the lands in question after 
she remarried in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. That finding 
was affirmed by the court of appeal and by the High Court by dismissal of 
D the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. 
According to the appellant, as respondent No. 3, the mother of the 
respondents, after coming into force of the Succession Act had become the 
absolute owner in respect of the property in her possession, she could have 
E 
conveyed a valid title to the appellant by the sale deed aforesaid. 
F 
G 
H 
Section 4 of the Succession Act is as follows : 
"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 
of any matter for which provision is made in this Act; 
(b) any other law in force immediately before the c;ommence-
ment 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. 
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing 
contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of 
HIRA v. KASTURIBAI 
491 
any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of A 
fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings 
or for the devolution of tenancy right in respect of such holdings." 
On a plain reading sub-section (1) gives the provisions of Succession 
Act an overriding effe•ct. But sub-section (2) of Section 4 is in the nature 
of proviso i.e. exception to sub-section ( 1). It clearly says that nothing B 
contained in the said Act shall deem to affect the provisions of any law for 
the time being in force; 
(i) 
providing for the prevention of fragmentation of ag

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.