Hindu Law – Widow – Remarriage – Effect on rights in deceased husband’s property – Timing. Where a Hindu widow remarries after the death of her husband, her rights and interests, if any, in her deceased husband’s property cease by operation of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, “as if she had then died”. In the present case, remarriage having taken place prior to 1910, no right survived in favour of the widow. (Paras 9–10, 17, 19)

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Law – Widow – Remarriage – Effect on rights in deceased husband’s property – Timing.
Where a Hindu widow remarries after the death of her husband, her rights and interests, if any, in her deceased husband’s property cease by operation of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, “as if she had then died”. In the present case, remarriage having taken place prior to 1910, no right survived in favour of the widow. (Paras 9–10, 17, 19)

Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 – Section 2 – Scope.
Section 2 statutorily extinguishes all rights and interests of the widow in the deceased husband’s property on remarriage, including rights by inheritance or limited estate, and succession thereupon opens in favour of the next heirs of the husband. (Paras 9–10, 17)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 – Non-application.
The rights of parties in the present case were not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession having opened prior to its commencement. The Court proceeded solely on the basis of pre-1956 law and Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856. (Paras 15, 17, 19)

Succession – Opening of succession – Relevant date.
Succession opens on the death of the property holder. As Madhavan died prior to 1910, succession was governed by the law prevailing at that time and not by subsequent enactments. (Paras 1–2, 15, 17)

Property Law – Conveyance – Proof of document vis-à-vis proof of title.
Proof of execution of a document does not, by itself, establish title in the executant. Where the executant lacks title, the Court is competent to examine the validity of the claim without a separate suit for cancellation. (Paras 17–18)

Lease – Execution by persons having title – Partial validity.
A lease executed jointly by persons having title and a person without title does not fail in entirety; it remains valid to the extent of the interest of the true owners. (Para 17)

Lease – Fixed term – Efflux of time – Consequence.
A lease for a fixed period without a renewal clause comes to an end by efflux of time, and no rights can be claimed thereunder thereafter. (Para 18)

Assignment – No subsisting right – Ineffectiveness.
An assignment made after expiry of the lease term by a lessee who has no subsisting interest does not convey any enforceable right. (Para 18)

Partition – Claim through remarried widow – Not maintainable.
A claim for partition based on derivation of title through a widow who had lost all her rights in her deceased husband’s property on remarriage is not maintainable. (Paras 17–19)

Civil Procedure – Evidence – Objection to admissibility – Stage.
Objections to admissibility of documents not raised at the trial stage cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in second appeal. (Para 13)

Result – High Court judgment set aside – First Appellate Court judgment restored.
(Paras 19–21)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

(No additions beyond record)

1. Parties and relationship
   Madhavan and Chiruthey were husband and wife. Sankaran was born from this marriage. After Madhavan’s death, Chiruthey remarried Neelakandan, from whom Chandu (plaintiff) was born. (Para 1)

2. Property and original title
   The suit property is situated in Survey No. 56/8, Eravattur Village, Kozhikode District. In 1900, Madhavan and his mother Nangeli executed a mortgage deed (Ext. B-1) without delivering possession, evidencing their ownership. (Paras 2, 7)

3. Documents relied upon by plaintiff

   • Ext. A-20 (14.07.1910): Lease executed by Chiruthey, Nangeli and minor Sankaran.

   • Ext. A-1 (14.07.1910): Verumpattam Kuzhikkanam deed leasing the same property back to Chiruthey and Kuttiperavan for 12 years.

   • Ext. A-2 (22.07.1925): Assignment by Kuttiperavan in favour of Chiruthey and Sankaran.
     (Paras 3–5)

4. Decisions of courts below
   Trial Court decreed partition. First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that Chiruthey had no title. High Court restored the Trial Court decree. (Paras 7, 15)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

(Only what the Court actually reasoned)

1. Effect of widow’s remarriage (Paras 9–10, 17)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, a widow’s remarriage extinguishes her rights in her deceased husband’s property. Chiruthey’s remarriage having taken place prior to 1910, she had no surviving proprietary interest.

2. Non-application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Paras 15, 17, 19)

The Court did not apply or interpret Section 24. Instead, it proceeded on the basis that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was inapplicable because succession had already opened. Any reference to later statutes was rejected by necessary implication.

3. Validity of Ext. A-20 (Para 17)

Though Chiruthey lacked title, Ext. A-20 was held valid to the extent it was executed by Nangeli and Sankaran, who were the legal heirs of Madhavan.

4. Nature and expiry of leasehold rights (Paras 17–18)

The re-lease under Ext. A-1 conferred only leasehold rights for 12 years. After expiry, neither Chiruthey nor Kuttiperavan retained any enforceable interest.

5. Failure of plaintiff’s claim (Paras 18–19)

Since the plaintiff’s claim was derivative of Chiruthey, and she had no subsisting title or heritable interest, the claim for partition necessarily failed.