Execution – Final decree proceedings – Obstructor application – Maintainability.
A party to the decree cannot maintain an application as an obstructor under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC for re-adjudication of rights already concluded by a preliminary decree, in the absence of any independent cause of action arising subsequent to the decree.
(Paras 4–5)
Partition – Final decree proceedings – Re-opening of settled rights – Impermissibility.
Rights finally determined under a preliminary decree in a partition suit, affirmed up to second appeal and review, cannot be reopened at the stage of final decree proceedings.
(Paras 4–5)
Widow – Remarriage – Effect on vested property.
In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, property vested in a widow by succession to her deceased husband is not divested by her subsequent remarriage.
(Paras 6–7)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 – Widow – Absolute estate.
Property inherited by a Hindu widow under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 vests in her as full owner, and remarriage after such vesting does not operate as a ground of forfeiture.
(Paras 6–7)
Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 – Section 2 – Non-application after vesting under 1956 Act.
The rule of divestment under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 has no application to cases governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where the widow has already become full owner of the property.
(Paras 7–8)
Constitutional values – Gender equality – Succession law.
Divesting a widow of property vested in her solely on the ground of remarriage would offend principles of equality and justice, particularly when remarriage of a widower does not attract such consequence.
(Para 8)
Writ jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference – Limits.
No interference is warranted under Article 227 where the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional error or perversity and merely seeks to enforce finality of adjudication.
(Paras 4–8)
Result – Writ petition dismissed in limine.
(Last para)
B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
(No facts added beyond the record)
-
Nature of proceedings
The dispute arose out of a partition suit (O.S. No.2/2008), culminating in a preliminary decree affirmed in regular appeals and second appeal, followed by rejection of a review petition.
(Para 4) -
Final decree stage
During final decree proceedings (FDP No.5/2012), the petitioner, who was a party to the decree, filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC, styling himself as an “obstructor”.
(Paras 1–2, 5) -
Ground urged
The sole ground urged was that the contesting respondent-widow had contracted a second marriage after the death of her husband and, therefore, her rights required re-adjudication.
(Paras 2, 6) -
Order impugned
The executing court rejected the application with costs, holding that the plea sought to reopen settled rights.
(Para 1)
C. ANALYSIS OF LAW
(Strictly as reasoned by the High Court)
1. Maintainability of obstructor application
The High Court held that a party to the decree cannot invoke Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC as an obstructor to seek re-determination of rights already adjudicated. In the absence of any supervening independent cause of action, such an application is wholly misconceived.
(Paras 4–5)
2. Finality of partition decrees
Since the preliminary decree had attained finality up to second appeal and review, the Court held that reopening the rights of parties at the final decree stage was impermissible.
(Paras 4–5)
3. Effect of remarriage of widow
The Court categorically rejected the contention that remarriage divests a widow of property vested in her by succession. It observed that no provision of law supports such divestment under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(Paras 6–7)
4. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Relying on settled exposition of law (including authoritative commentary and precedent), the Court held that a widow takes her husband’s property as full owner under Section 14, and remarriage after vesting does not affect her title.
(Paras 6–7)
5. Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856
The Court observed that the divestment rule under Section 2 of the 1856 Act cannot apply to cases governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly after repeal of the 1856 Act and in view of the overriding scheme of the 1956 Act.
(Paras 7–8)
The Court placed reliance on the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in Cherotte Sugathan v. Cherotte Bharathi, and decisions of several High Courts, including Uma Sahu v. Sabitri Sahu.
(Para 8)
6. Constitutional perspective
The Court underscored that divesting a widow of property solely on account of remarriage would be inconsistent with constitutional principles of gender equality and justice.
(Para 8)
CONCLUSION / RATIO
A party to a partition decree cannot, at the stage of final decree proceedings, seek re-adjudication of settled rights by invoking obstruction proceedings under Order XXI CPC. Property vested absolutely in a widow under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not divested by her subsequent remarriage, and the divestment rule under the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 has no application to such cases. The writ court will not interfere under Article 227 to unsettle finality of adjudication.
No comments:
Post a Comment