Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 (as it then stood) – Limited scope. Section 24 applies only to widows of a pre-deceased son, pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or brother of the intestate, and does not govern the case of a widow inheriting directly from her husband. (Paras 11, 15)

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 – Section 2 – Applicability after Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 cannot operate to divest rights which vest absolutely in a widow on succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in view of the overriding effect of Section 4 of the 1956 Act.
(Paras 9–13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 4 – Overriding effect.
By virtue of Section 4, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevail over any pre-existing law, including the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, to the extent of inconsistency.
(Paras 10, 13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Widow – Absolute estate.
Property inherited by a widow on the death of her husband after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 vests in her as full owner, and such vesting cannot be subjected to divestment except by express statutory provision.
(Paras 11–13)

Widow – Remarriage – Effect on vested rights.
Remarriage of a widow does not divest property which has already vested absolutely in her by inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(Paras 12–14)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 (as it then stood) – Limited scope.
Section 24 applies only to widows of a pre-deceased son, pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or brother of the intestate, and does not govern the case of a widow inheriting directly from her husband.
(Paras 11, 15)

Succession – Opening of succession – Relevant date.
Rights of heirs are determined with reference to the date on which succession opens, i.e., the date of death of the intestate.
(Paras 12–13)

Precedent – Question no longer res integra.
The principle that remarriage of a widow does not divest her of property inherited under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 stands settled by prior decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
(Paras 14–15)

Result – Appeal dismissed.
(Para 22)

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

(No facts added beyond the record)

1. Family and property
   The suit properties belonged to Sri Pervakutty. He had three sons and two daughters.
   (Para 3)

2. Deaths and succession
   Pervakutty died on 20-10-1975. One of his sons, Sukumaran, died on 02-08-1976.
   (Paras 3, 12)

3. Widow and remarriage
   The first respondent was the widow of Sukumaran. She remarried after his death and subsequently filed a suit for partition claiming one-third share in the suit properties.
   (Paras 4, 7)

4. Defence plea
   The appellants contended that by reason of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, the respondent had lost all rights in the property inherited from her deceased husband on her remarriage.
   (Paras 4, 7)

5. Proceedings below
   The Trial Court decreed the suit. The High Court remanded the matter on limited issues but held that Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act applied. The correctness of that view was challenged before the Supreme Court.
   (Paras 5–6)

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

(Strictly as reasoned by the Supreme Court)

1. Scheme of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The Court held that the 1956 Act brought a fundamental change in Hindu law by placing widows on an equal footing with male heirs. Section 14(1) converts any property possessed by a female Hindu into her absolute property.
(Para 11)

2. Overriding effect under Section 4

Section 4 of the 1956 Act gives overriding effect to its provisions and causes pre-existing laws to cease to apply insofar as they are inconsistent with the Act. Consequently, Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 cannot override rights vested under the 1956 Act.
(Paras 10, 13)

3. Vesting of rights and non-divestment

On the death of Sukumaran in 1976, succession opened under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The widow inherited his share absolutely under Sections 8 and 14. Such absolute vesting could not be divested by her subsequent remarriage.
(Paras 12–13)

4. Limited role of Section 24

The Court clarified that Section 24 (as it stood prior to its deletion) applied only to specified categories of widows and did not govern a case where the widow inherited directly from her husband.
(Paras 11, 15)

5. Settled position of law

Relying on earlier decisions, including Kasturi Devi and High Court precedents, the Court held that the issue was no longer open to debate and that remarriage could not defeat vested succession rights.
(Paras 14–15)

---

CONCLUSION / RATIO

Where succession opens after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a widow inherits her deceased husband’s property as an absolute owner under Section 14, and such vested right is not divested by her subsequent remarriage. Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 cannot operate in view of the overriding effect of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Section 24 has only a limited, category-specific application.