SMT. KASTURI DEVI versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 04-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
. I 
25 
SMT. KASTURI DEVI 
A 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS. 
November 4, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MU:RTAZA f,\ZAL ALI, 
B 
JJ.] 
Hindu Succession A.ct, 1956-Whether remarriage would bar a mother fr•m 
succeeding as son's heir. 
• 
On the demise of Karuna, ther were two rival claims for inheritance to 
his property. 
One by the appellant who claimed it as bis widowed mother, 
and the other by his father's brother who contended that the appellant 
had 
remarried and was thereby barred from succeeding as Karna's heir. After the 
consolidation officer had decided against her, and the settlement officer, Etah 
Camp, Aligarh, in her favour, the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided a 
revision petition against the appellant holding that her remarriage excluded her 
from the inheritance. 
Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully fikd a writ 
petiion before the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Kasturi claimed inheritance not as a widow of her husband Madhua 
but as the mother of Karna. We are entirely in agreement with the view that 
"unchastity of a mother is no bar to her succeeding as heir to her son, nor 
does her remarriage constitute any such bar". Under the Hindu Jaw, the bar 
of inheritance would not apply to a mother, as it would to a widow. [27B-D] 
'Hindu Law' 14th Edn. clause iii) p. 116 followed. 
CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 789 of 1975. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
25.2.1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3756 
of 1971). 
E. C. Agarwala, for the Appellant. 
B. Datta, for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
F 
FAzAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave involves a 
pure 
question of law regarding inheritance to the property of one Karua. 
Briefly put, the case of the appellant was that the disputed Khata was 
recorded in the name of Karua the son of Madhua who died leaving 
G 
behind his widow Kasturi and his son Karua. 
He had two brothers 
Khushi Ram and Lekhraj who clai.med to be the next reversioners. 
It is obvious that on the death of Madhua, Kasturi as the widow got 
half share in the property and the other half went to Karua. 
The 
dispute seems to have arisen on the death of Karua when two rival 
claims were put forward, one by Kasturi who contended 
that she 
was entitled to inherit as mother of Karua, 
whereas 
Khushi Ram 
H 
averred that as Kasturi had married Lekhraj she should be divested 
of her interest and excluded from inheritance as a result of which the 
property would pass on to Khushi Ram and Lekhraj in equal shares 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 s.c.R. 
as next rcvcrsioners. 
The appellant also denied the fact that Kasturi 
had 
remarried 
Lekhraj. 
The first Court 
of the Consolidation 
Officer negatived the claim of Kasturi and directed mutation to 
be 
made in the name -0f Khushi Ram under the provisions of the U.P. 
Consolidation of Holdings Act 
The present appellant filed 
an 
appeal before the Settlement Officer, Etah Camp, at Aligrah, against 
the decision of the <i::onsolidation Officer who reversed tlie finding of 
the Consolidation Officer and held that as the re-marriage of Kasturi 
with Lekhraj had not been proved, the appellant Kasturi was entitled 
to be recorded in the revenue papers. 
Against this decisi.on there 
was a revision by Khushi Ram before the Deputy Director of Consoli-
dation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored 
that of the Consolidation Officer. 
The Deputy. Director of Consoli-
dation held that there was abundant evidence to prove that Kasturi 
had re-married Lekhraj and, therefore, in law she would be excluded 
from inheriting the property and was not entitled to be mutated 
in 
respect of the Khata in question. 
The appellant thereupon 
un-
successfully filed a writ petition before the High Court and 
hence 
this appeal before this Court 
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal on the 
basis of the facts proved in this case. 
He has not, and could not, 
assail the finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consoli-
dation which was the last revisional court in this case. 
Before pro· 
ceeding to determine the point in controversy,· it may be necessary to 
state the admitted facts. 
In the first place it is not disputed that 
the claim of Kasturi was made after the death of Kama. 
By 
that 
time Kasturi as the 

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