Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 (pre-amendment) – Scope. Section 24 applies only to the widows of a pre-deceased son, pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or brother of the intestate; a widow of the intestate himself does not fall within its ambit. (Paras 28–29)

advocatemmmohan

Succession – Widow – Customary marriage (Chudi marriage) – Validity.
Where evidence on record establishes the existence and acceptance of a customary form of marriage (Chudi marriage) in the community, and parties themselves admit such custom, the marriage is valid and cannot be disregarded for purposes of succession.
(Paras 25–27, 29)

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 an absolute estate under Section 14(1).
(Paras 23, 29)

Widow – Remarriage – Effect on inherited property.
Remarriage of a widow does not divest property which has already vested in her absolutely under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(Paras 27, 29)

Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 – Section 2 – Overriding effect of 1956 Act.
Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 cannot operate to divest rights vested in a widow under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in view of Section 4 of the 1956 Act.
(Paras 27–29)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 (pre-amendment) – Scope.
Section 24 applies only to the widows of a pre-deceased son, pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or brother of the intestate; a widow of the intestate himself does not fall within its ambit.
(Paras 28–29)

Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – Erroneous application of Section 24.
Application of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act to a widow who does not fall within the statutory categories constitutes an error of law justifying interference in second appeal.
(Paras 30–31)

First Appellate Court – Perversity – Ignoring admissions and evidence.
Findings of the first appellate court ignoring clear admissions of parties and consistent oral evidence regarding customary marriage are perverse and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 25–27)

Result – Second Appeal allowed – Trial Court decree restored.
(Paras 32–33)

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

(No facts added beyond the record)

1. Family background
   Sadhu Singh had two sons, Mohar Singh and Puhup Singh. Mohar Singh married Hirdoi Bai and a daughter, Son Bai (plaintiff), was born from that wedlock.
   (Paras 4–6)

2. Disputed marriage
   Defendant No.1, Luli Bai, claimed to be the wife of Mohar Singh by Chudi marriage, a customary form of marriage prevalent in the Satnami community.
   (Paras 6, 10–16)

3. Deaths and succession
   Mohar Singh died in 1963. After his death, Luli Bai continued in possession of part of the property. The plaintiff claimed exclusive title to Mohar Singh’s property, denying Luli Bai’s status as wife.
   (Paras 4–6, 17)

4. Trial Court decision
   The Trial Court held that Luli Bai was the legally wedded wife of Mohar Singh by customary marriage and entitled to inherit his property as widow; consequently, the plaintiff was not the sole owner.
   (Para 17)

5. First Appellate Court decision
   The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court, held that Luli Bai was only a concubine, and applied Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act to deny her inheritance.
   (Paras 18–19)

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

(Strictly as reasoned by the High Court)

1. Proof and validity of customary marriage

The High Court held that the plaintiff and her witnesses had themselves admitted the prevalence of Chudi marriage in the community. In such circumstances, no further strict proof of custom was required. The First Appellate Court erred in discarding this evidence.
(Paras 25–27)

2. Vesting of widow’s rights

On the death of Mohar Singh, succession opened under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Luli Bai, being the widow of the intestate, inherited the property, which vested absolutely in her by virtue of Section 14(1).
(Paras 23, 29)

3. Effect of remarriage

The High Court reiterated that remarriage of a widow does not divest rights already vested under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(Paras 27, 29)

4. Inapplicability of Section 24, Hindu Succession Act

Section 24 (as it stood prior to its deletion) applied only to widows of a pre-deceased son, pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or brother of the intestate. Luli Bai, being the widow of the intestate himself, did not fall within those categories. The First Appellate Court committed a clear error in applying Section 24.
(Paras 28–29, 31)

5. Overriding effect of Section 4

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act gives overriding effect to the 1956 Act over the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, preventing divestment of vested rights.
(Paras 27–29)

---

CONCLUSION / RATIO

Where a widow of the intestate inherits property after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, such property vests in her absolutely under Section 14(1) and is not divested by remarriage. Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to the limited categories expressly mentioned therein and cannot be invoked against a widow of the intestate himself. Erroneous application of Section 24 and disregard of proved customary marriage vitiate the appellate decree.