RAM SWAROOP AND ANR. versus MAHINDRU AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 18-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM SWAROOP AND ANR. 
v. 
MAHINDRU AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2003 
B 
[Y.K. SABHAR\.i/AL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAH, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856 (as enforced in Himachal 
Pradesh w.e.f 01.01.1950 vide Merged States (Laws) Act, 1~49-Section 
C 2-Applicability of-Widow remarrying brother of deceased husband-
According to the custom prevailing in the community in the area property 
inherited by widow ji·om her deceased husband succeeded by her second 
husband-Compromise deed executed in year 1932, signed by widow, 
husband's brothers, panchas and other witnesses and properties passed to 
D the second husband as exclusive owner-Second husband died in 1956 and 
his sons-defendants became the owners-Husband's brother also died and 
his sons-plaintiff filed suit for declaration claiming 113 share in property 
owned jointly with defendants and also partition-Defendants pleading 
that plaintiffs have no cause of action since the parties are governed by 
E the custom prevailing and plaintiffs father consented to the document 
relating to the transfer of property of first husband in favour of second 
husband-Suit dismissed by trial court, however appeal allowed-High 
Court also decided in favour of plaintiff-On appeal held: Subsequent 
applicability of the 1856 Act can have no retrospective effect and cannot 
take away the right of the widow who got the property in 1932-Widow 
F fully competent to inherit all properties and on remarriage she does not 
lose her rights, title in the estate of her deceased husband as parties 
governed by custom prevailing-Also the evidence on record proved that 
on remarriage widow did not f01feit her right to suit properties and did 
not divest her of her right in properties-Furthermore, plaintiffs father 
G consented to the document relating to the transfer of property of first 
husband in favour of second husband-Plaintiff attained majority in 1956 
and filed suit in 1968 as such suit barred by time-Also as rights were 
relinquished by plaintiff's father it could not be challenged-Hence, suit 
filed by plaintiff dismissed and judgment of High Court set aside-
H CustomaT)' Laws-Limitation Act, 1963. 
1064 
RAM SWAROOP v. MAHINDRU 
1065 
M-plaintifrs father, B-appellant's father and K are brothers. A 
Plaintiff, father of respondents in the present appeal, filed suit for 
declaration claiming property owned jointly with the appellant-defend-
ants and partition of his share in 1968. Appellants contended that 
respondents-plaintiff have no cause of action or locus standi to file suit. 
It was submitted that K died about 32 years ago and his widow inherited B 
his properties. One year later in accordance with the custom prevailing 
in the area the widow became wife of B, father of the appellant-
defendants and brother of plaintiff's father and B succeeded to the 
properties belonging to the first husband. A compromise deed was 
executed in the year 1932 and was signed by the widow, Panchas, 
plaintifrs father and other witnesses and the properties passed to B- C 
appellant's father which he occupied as exclusive owner including the 
suit properties. He used the properties without any interruption, 
constructed shops at his own cost. Plaintiff's father died in 1942. 
B-appellant's father died in 1956 and the appellant-defendants became 
the owners and in possession of the properties. Appellants also submit- D 
ted that they are in adverse possession of the land which their father was 
also in adverse possession. Trial Court dismissed the suit. Respondents 
filed an appeal. District Judge allowed the appeal. Appeilants then filed 
regular second appeal. High Court held that on remarriage the widow 
lost all her rights, title in the estate of her deceased husband and as such E 
she could not have transferred such rights, title and interest in favour 
of the second husband; and that the document relating to the transfer 
of the estate of K in favour of B does not appear to have been given 
effect to and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-defendants contended that the widow on remarriage F 
would not lose all her rights in the property. 
Respondent-plaintiffs contended that the High Court correctly 
interpreted the provisions of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856; 
that the widow on her remarriage with B-father of the appellant lost all G 
her rights in the property which she inherited from her deceased 
husband and as such she could not have transferred such 

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