Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Widow's Rights in Estate After Remarriage. The court affirmed that customary law dictates forfeiture of rights upon remarriage, with no special custom found for Dhaliwal Jats.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the appellant, Sada Kaur, and the respondents, Bakhtawar Singh and others, regarding the rights of a widow over her deceased husband's estate after remarriage. The parties were Dhaliwal Jats from Muktsar Tehsil in Ferozepur District, Punjab. After the death of her husband in 1937, Sada Kaur remarried her husband's younger brother, Chand Singh, in Karewa form. The respondents filed a suit claiming that Sada Kaur forfeited her rights to her deceased husband's estate due to her remarriage. Sada Kaur contended that according to their customary law, she retained her rights. The trial court initially declined to grant the declaration sought by the respondents, but the District Judge allowed their appeal. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, stating that there was no special custom among the Dhaliwal Jats permitting a widow to retain her rights upon remarriage. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that customs vary significantly across regions and that the riwaj-i-am entries indicated that remarriage, even to a deceased husband's brother, resulted in forfeiture of rights to the estate. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings and emphasizing the lack of evidence for a special custom in Muktsar. The court concluded that the customary law as recorded in the riwaj-i-am prevailed over any conflicting entries in Rattigan's Digest, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Widow's Rights - Forfeiture of Life Interest - Hindu Law - The court held that a widow marrying her deceased husband's brother forfeits her interest in her husband's estate according to the customary law of Dhaliwal Jats of Muktsar, as supported by the riwaj-i-am and Rattigan's Digest. The court found no special custom allowing retention of rights upon such remarriage, thus affirming the lower court's decision (Paras 88-90).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a widow marrying her deceased husband's brother forfeits her life interest in her husband's estate under customary law among Dhaliwal Jats of Muktsar.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that there was no special custom among Dhaliwal Jats allowing a widow to retain her rights upon remarriage to her deceased husband's brother.

Law Points

  • customary law
  • widow's rights
  • forfeiture of estate
  • riwaj-i-am
  • Rattigan's Digest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1980 LawText (SC) (07) 9

Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1970

1980-07-24

A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia

1980 AIR 2138, 1981 SCR (1) 85, 1980 SCC (4) 174

S. K. Sinha, Hardev Singh, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga

Sada Kaur

Bakhtawar Singh and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute over widow's rights to deceased husband's estate after remarriage.

Remedy Sought

Respondents sought declaration of entitlement to deceased husband's estate.

Filing Reason

Claim of forfeiture of rights due to widow's remarriage.

Previous Decisions

Trial court denied respondents' claim; District Judge allowed appeal; High Court upheld District Judge's decision.

Issues

Whether a widow forfeits her rights to her deceased husband's estate upon remarriage to his brother under customary law.

Submissions/Arguments

Respondents argued that customary law dictates forfeiture of rights upon remarriage. Appellant contended that a special custom allowed retention of rights upon remarriage to deceased husband's brother.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that customary law, as recorded in the riwaj-i-am, prevails over conflicting entries in Rattigan's Digest, establishing that a widow forfeits her rights upon remarriage.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court was right in holding that there was no special custom among Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar which permitted a widow, on remarriage with her deceased husband’s brother, to retain her interest in the estate of her deceased husband. It has been held by this Court that entries in the riwaj-i-am compiled in 1915 by Currie, Settlement Officer, are relevant evidence under section 35 of the Evidence Act.

Procedural History

The trial court initially denied the respondents' claim; the District Judge allowed their appeal; the High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Evidence Act: 35
  • Hindu Law:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Employee's Petition, Sets Aside Industrial Court's Order in Domestic Enquiry Case. Labour Court's Vitiation of Enquiry Upheld as Enquiry Officer's Findings Were Perverse for Lack of Evidence on Specific Charge.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses First Appeal Against Limitation Dismissal of Temple Rights Suit. Court Holds Section 10 of Limitation Act Inapplicable as Suit Seeks Declaration and Injunction, Not Possession of Trust Property.