Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 – Widow of pre-deceased son – Remarriage – Disqualification – Proof. A widow of a pre-deceased son is disentitled to succeed to the estate of the intestate under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 only if it is proved that she had remarried prior to the opening of succession; burden lies on the person alleging such remarriage.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 – Widow of pre-deceased son – Remarriage – Disqualification – Proof.
A widow of a pre-deceased son is disentitled to succeed to the estate of the intestate under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 only if it is proved that she had remarried prior to the opening of succession; burden lies on the person alleging such remarriage.
(Paras 6–10)

Succession – Opening of succession – Relevant date.
Succession opens on the death of the intestate, and entitlement of heirs must be determined with reference to the factual position, including remarriage, as existing on that date.
(Paras 6–7)

Evidence – Proof of remarriage – Oral and documentary evidence – Insufficiency.
Where oral testimony is vague and documentary evidence is not duly proved or lacks authenticity, courts are justified in holding that remarriage prior to the opening of succession is not established.
(Paras 7–9)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 24 – Applicability dependent on factum and timing of remarriage.
Section 24 operates only where remarriage of the widow of a pre-deceased son is proved to have taken place before the death of the intestate; in absence of such proof, succession cannot be denied.
(Paras 6–10)

Second Appeal – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference.
Concurrent findings of the courts below that remarriage prior to the opening of succession is not proved, being based on appreciation of evidence, do not warrant interference in second appeal.
(Paras 10–11)

Limitation – Challenge to mutation – Delay.
A suit challenging mutation entries sanctioned decades earlier, without explanation for prolonged inaction after attaining majority, is barred by limitation.
(Para 11)

Result – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 11–13)

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

(No facts added beyond the record)

1. Parties and relationship
   The plaintiff, Smt. Bachni Devi, was the grand-daughter of Thainu. Defendant No.1, Smt. Jeeto, was the widow of Barkat, the pre-deceased son of Thainu.
   (Paras 2, 6)

2. Deaths and succession pleaded
   Barkat died in 1957. Thainu died on 14-07-1960. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in 1961 in favour of both the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
   (Paras 2, 6, 11)

3. Plaintiff’s case
   The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 had remarried Hukma in 1959 during the lifetime of Thainu and was therefore disqualified from inheriting his estate; mutation and subsequent gift deed were challenged as void.
   (Paras 2, 6)

4. Defence case
   Defendant No.1 asserted that she had not remarried before the death of Thainu and that she succeeded to half share lawfully; she defended the mutation and the gift deed.
   (Para 3)

5. Findings of courts below
   Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove remarriage of defendant No.1 prior to the death of Thainu and further held the suit to be barred by limitation.
   (Paras 4, 7, 11)

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

(Strictly as reasoned by the High Court)

1. Scope of Section 24, Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The High Court explained that Section 24 disentitles a widow of a pre-deceased son from succeeding to the estate of the intestate only if she had remarried before the succession opened, i.e., before the death of the intestate.
(Para 6)

2. Burden and proof of remarriage

The Court held that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that defendant No.1 had remarried prior to 14-07-1960. After examining oral testimony and documentary evidence, the Court concurred with the courts below that such remarriage was not proved.
(Paras 7–10)

Certificates relied upon by the plaintiff were found to be not duly proved, and oral witnesses lacked certainty or special means of knowledge.
(Paras 7–9)

3. Concurrent findings of fact

The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings that remarriage prior to opening of succession was not established, holding that these findings were the only conclusions possible on the evidence.
(Para 10)

4. Limitation

The Court affirmed the finding that the suit was barred by limitation, noting that the plaintiff attained majority in 1970 but challenged the mutation only in 1989, without justification for delay.
(Para 11)

---

CONCLUSION / RATIO

For the disqualification under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to apply, it must be proved that the widow of a pre-deceased son had remarried before the opening of succession. In the absence of reliable proof of such remarriage, succession cannot be denied. Concurrent findings on insufficiency of evidence and limitation, being findings of fact, do not give rise to a substantial question of law in second appeal.