Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for partition and possession filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) against the appellant (defendant No.1) and others in respect of seven agricultural lands and two house properties. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was ancestral property of his predecessor Yeshwant Nagawade, who died leaving behind his widow Chandrabhaga (defendant No.2), son Bhanudas (defendant No.1), and a daughter. The plaintiff, claiming to be the son of Bhanudas, sought partition and separate possession of his share. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not the son of Bhanudas and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court reversed the finding on paternity but dismissed the appeal on limitation, holding that the suit was barred by Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding limitation and the effect of the widow's remarriage. The court held that the widow's remarriage does not extinguish her right to inherit from her first husband under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, and that the plaintiff, being a coparcener, could not be ousted without proof of ouster. The court also held that the suit for partition is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff is in joint possession. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits, with directions to consider the effect of the widow's remarriage and the issue of ouster.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Inheritance - Widow's Remarriage - Section 2 of Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 - The court held that a widow's remarriage does not divest her of the property already inherited from her first husband, as the right vests immediately on his death and is not lost by remarriage under the said Act. (Paras 8-10) B) Limitation Act - Partition - Adverse Possession - Article 65, Article 110 - The court held that a coparcener in possession cannot claim adverse possession against another coparcener unless there is ouster, and the burden of proving ouster lies on the person asserting it. The suit for partition is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff is in joint possession. (Paras 11-13) C) Hindu Succession Act - Succession - Section 8, Section 15 - The court held that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves according to Section 8, and the widow is a Class I heir. The court also clarified that the succession to a female Hindu is governed by Section 15. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition and possession filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation; whether the widow's remarriage extinguishes her right to inherit from her first husband; whether the defendant can claim adverse possession against a coparcener.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits, with directions to consider the effect of the widow's remarriage and the issue of ouster.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act
- 1856
- Section 2
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 65
- Article 110
- Partition
- Adverse Possession
- Ouster
- Coparcenary
- Widow's Remarriage
- Inheritance
