SURJIT KAUR versus GARJA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 27-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, S. MOHAN

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"· .... 
SURJIT KAUR 
v. 
GARJA SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1993 
B 
[S. RATNAVAL PANDIAN ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.) 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 7. 
Suit-Claim for possession of property by heirs of a deceased-Counter 
C claim-Counter claimant stating that she was legally wedded wife of deceased 
who had contracted Karewa form of marriage-Essential ceremonies of mar-
riage neither set out nor pleaded-Held mere living as husband and wife does 
not confer the status of wife and husband-Marriage held invalid-Counter 
claimant held not entitled to property. 
D 
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of the proper-
ty of one 'G', since deceased, and for a permanent injunction restraining 
the appellant (first defendant), in whose favour the mutation of in-
heritance of deceased was sanctioned, from alienating the land in dispute. 
Their claim was that they are the nearest heirs of the deceased 'G' who had 
E executed a will in their favour. The appellant (first defendant) contested 
the su1t on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of 'G' who had 
contracted Karewa form of marriage with her and that after the marriage 
both of them lived as husband and wife. 
The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was 
F the legally wedded wile of 'G' and that the will set up by the respondents 
was not valid. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the first 
Appellate Court. 
On second appeal the High Court found that (i) there was no 
averment in the pleadings ~at the marriage of the appellant with 'G' was 
G solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies; and (ii) 
the essential ceremonies for a valid marriage were not performed. Act:ord-
ingly, it held that· the appellant was not the wife/widow of 'G'. Further, 
accepting the respondents' claim that they are the nearest heirs of the 
deceased the High Court held that they would be entitled to succeed to the 
H estate of 'G'. 
428 
S. KAUR v. G. SINGHfMOHAN, J.] 
429 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant A 
that (i) the High Court erred in holding that there was no averment in the 
written statement as to the marriage; (ii) the ceremonies of marriage were 
performed in the village and gur was distributed which would prove the 
marriage; and (iii) in view of the judgment in Charan Singh, Hamam Singh 
&Anr. v. Gurdial Singh, Hamam Singh &Anr., A.I.R. (1961) Punjab 301, no B 
ceremonies were essential to a widow's re-marriage. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The High Court is right in its conclusion, that the appellant 
was not the wife/widow of 'G'. No custom was pleaded at all. Even the 
evidence of the Appellant does not bring out as to what were the ceremonies C 
performed. Mere distribution of gur will not constitute the necessary 
ceremony. This ·is not a case of widow's remarriage to the husband's 
brother. 'G' was a stranger. Mere living as husband and wife does not, at 
any rate, confer the status of wife and husband. Accordingly, there i~ no 
warrant for interference with the judgment of the High Court. 
D 
[432-D, E, 431-H, 432-F, 433-B] 
B.S. Lokhande &Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &Anr., [1965) 2 S.C.R. 
837, relied on. 
Charan Singh, Hamam Singh & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh, Hamam Singh E 
& Anr., A.I.R. (1961) Punj. 301, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 221 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and order dated 11.10.90 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1560/1978. 
F 
J.S. Wasu and T.S. Arora for the Appellant. 
P. Chidambaram, S. Ujjagar Singh, Surya Kant ~d Satish Vig for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. The facts leading to this Civil Appeal are as under : 
G 
The suit property in question was originally owned by one Gulaba 
Singh. He died on September 5, 1969. The plaintiffs laid a suit No. 217/137 H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dhuri on 18.6.1970 for possession of 
the suit property on the plea that they were the grand sons of the father's 
brother of the said Gulaba Singh. They also based their claim on the will 
stated to have been executed by Gulaba Singh in their favour on August 
16, 1969. It was further averred in the plaint that the first defendant has 
B no right, title or interest in the suit property. Her claim that she was validly 
married to Gulaba is baseless. The Karewa Nama dated October 28, 1965 
alleged

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