LexSMT. MAINIA versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-;
-
SMT. MAINIA
v.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & OTHERS
AUGUST 4, 1989
IL.M. SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.]
United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939: Sections 35, 36 and 18{}-
Character of widow's possession after remarriage-Altered by opera-
tion of law-No further animi;s required.
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Sec-
tions 17 1 & 172-Succession in case of woman holding interest inherited
asa widow.
One Chain Suk.b died lssueless- His interest as the occupancy
tenant of the land in dispute therefore devolved upon his widow, Smt-
Sukhia, in accordance with section 35 of the United Provinces Terumq
Act, 1939- ·A couple· of years after the death of Chain Suk.h, Suk.bia
remarried Gopal Singh in "Karwa" form according to the caste
custom, prior to the date of vesting, i.e_, 1.7-1952, under the U.P.
Zamiodari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. A son Chander Pal,
respondent No. 4, was born to Sukhla. Suk.bia continued to remain in
possession of this holding till her death in 1965.
The appellant is the sister of deceased Chain Sukh- A dispute
arose between the appellant and Chander Pal during the consolidation
proceedings under the U-P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, each
of them claiming interest to the exclusion of the other_ The Consolida-
tion Officer held that Smt- Sukhla on her remarriage lost her interest in
A
B
c
D
E
F
the holding and by virtue of section 171 of the Zamiodari Abolition Act,
Smt. Maioia being the sister of Chain Sukb inherited the interest in the
holding. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dismissed Chander
Pal's appeal. The Settlement Officer, however, held that a legal mar-
riage of Smt. Suk.hia with Gopal Singh was not proved; that Smt.
Sukhia cultivated the land tbrongboot as the widow of Chain Suk.h, and
that, after her death the appellant inberrited it. In revision, the Deputy
G
Director Consolidation held that Smt. Sukhia's "Karva" with Gopal
Singh not being proved to be a legal marriage, the succession would be
governed on the basis that she was Chain Sukb's widow at the time of
her death.
Chander Pal filed a writ under Article 226, and the High Court
685
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1989] 3 S.C.R.
while allowing the petition held that the consolidation autlMwlties er..-1
in deciding the matter on the hams that Smt. Sukbia's marriage witll
Gopal Singh was not proved to be legal. The High Court observed that
) .•
A
B
in view of appellant Smt. Mainia's clear ...imissiou that Smt. Sukbia
was remarried to Gopal Singh in "Karwa" form, and that they bad
been living together as husband and wife for several years, no further
proof of legality of the remarriage was necessary. The High Court
further held that the effect of the provisions of the Tenancy Act was that
her interest in the holding after her remarriage was in her own right
and not as widow of Chain Sukb, and therefore, by virtue of section
180(2) of the Tenancy Act she acquired an independent right which did J
not devolve upon her death to Chain Sukb's sister, but to her son
C. Chander Pal born to her after her remarriage with GopaJ Singh.
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
Smt. Sukbia 's interest in the holding continued till her death only as
widow of Chain Sukb since her initial interest in the holding was by
devolution as widow of Chain Sukb under section 35 of the Tenancy
D
Act; that Smt. Sukbia's remarriage with Gopal Singh was not proved;
that since the possession of Smt. Sukbia was recorded throughout as
widow of Chain Sukb, there was no occasion for attracting the provi-
sions contained in section 180(2) of the Tenancy Act; and that on her
death in 1965 the succession was governed by section 172 read with
section 171 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. In reply, it was contended
E
that remarriage of Smt. Sukbia prior to the date of vesting, i.e.,
t.7.1952, under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 being the admitted case of the appellant, Smt. Mainia, herself, the
appellant could not now he permitted to take contrary stand; that the
possession of Smt. Sukhia in the holding al the time .of her death not
being as a widow of Chain Sukb but in her own right, the succession was
F
governed not by section 172 but by section 174 of the Zamindari Aboli-
tion Act under which Chander Pal inherited Smt. Sukbia's interest in
the holding as her son.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
G
HExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.