MST. KARTAR KAUR versus AJMER SINGH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 19-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MST. KARTAR KAUR 
v. 
AJMER SINGH 
APRIL 19, 1996 
[B.L. HANSARIA ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, .TJ.J 
Hind11 Law-Hindu Women's Right to Prope1ty Act, 1937-Right of 
inlte1itance to prope1ty by widows--,Applicability of~PEPSU area-Held, the 
plinciple behind the Act to be bome in mind. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent tiled a suit against the Appellant for declaration and 
possession of suit property situated in PEPSU area which belonged to his 
deceased father. He contended that since he was the son of the deceased 
and appellant was a \\'idow of deceased, he alone was entitled to sUcceed 
as per the custom prevailing in their Society, and thatthe mutation entries 
are incorrect. The Appellant contended that as per custom she was entitled D 
to succeed, that she got title on the basis of adverse possession and led in 
evidence to ~how that in other villages the widows have succeeded to their 
husband's properties. 
The trial Court though held !hat the Appellant is the sole mrner, E 
dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, adverse possession a!ld 
estoppel. 
On first Appeal the District Court decreed the suit and held that the 
suit was not barred by limitation, that there was no adverse possession, 
that as per general custom the widow was nut entitled to inherit and the 
Act of 1937 was not applicable to PEPSU where the land was situated. The 
Appeal by Appellant was dismissed by the High Court, and findings of the 
District Court were affirmed. 
Partly allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Though the' provisions of Hindu Women's Right to 
Property Act did not apply to the area in the then PEPSU, the underlining 
principle and idea behind that statutory provision are required to be borne 
in mind while deciding the claim of a widow relating to property situated 
F 
G 
In an area to which an Act might not have applied. On the oral and H 
587 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
documentary evidence, the appellant's case relating to there being a special 
custom allowing inheritance to a widow alonbiwith the son cannot be 
rejected. [591-A-C] 
B 
c 
2. There are no materials on record to show that the appellant's 
possession was adverse in nature because of which prescriptive title could 
have been acquired by her. [589-F-G] 
3. The Appellant is legally entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. 
The suit of the respondent is decreed accordingly. 
(This Court directed the Collector concerned divide the suit property 
by metes and bounds so as to allot l/6th specific share to the appellant as 
visualised by Order 20 Rule 18 CPC, the possession of the remaining part 
was directed to be given to the Respondent within 3 months.) [591-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4222 of 
D 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.82 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1813 of 1973. 
M.P. Verma, Ujjal Singh, R.C. Kaushik and J.P. Singh for the Ap-
E 
pellant. 
Ujjagar Singh, S.C. Paul and T.S. Arora, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
F 
HANSARIA, J. The appellant is widow of one late Ranjit Singh who 
was admittedly the owner of the property in question. The respondent is 
the son of Ranjit Singh. He filed a suit, out of which this appeal arises, for 
seeking declaration that he was the exclusive owner of the property and 
mutation entries made in the name of the appellant are incorrect. Decree 
for possession was also prayed. The respondent's case was that he being 
G the son and the appellant being a widow of Ranjit Singh, he alone was 
entitled to succeed to the property as per the custom prevailing in the 
society. The appellant, who was the sole defendant, asserted that as per 
custom she also was entitled to succeed. Ownership over the suit property 
was claimed because of acquisition of title on the basis of adverse posses-
H sion too. The trail court dismissed the suit by answering Issues 3, 4 and 5 
KART AR KAUR v. AIMER SINGH [HANSARIA, J.] 
589 
against the plaintiff, though it had answered Issue No. 1 reading: "Whether 
A 
the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property in the suit ?" in affirmative. 
On appeal being preferred, the Additional District Judge decreed the suit. 
The appellant carried the matter to the High Court in second appeal which 
was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
2. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that following B 
were Issues 3, 4 and 5 : 
"3. Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitati

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