KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS

Spread the love

Post Views: 19

CITATION	[2024] 4 S.C.R. 383
YEAR OF JUDGMENT	9th April, 2024
STATUTES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 (15 of 1856)
PLAINTIFF	Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (dead) Thr. Lrs.
DEFENDENT	Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki And Ors
BENCH	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The pillars of this suit are Property Law, Inheritance, Family Law, and Civil Law, this suit is particularly based on the partition of the property. This suit preliminarily is to determine the rights of the remarried women. The case originates from a son named Mr. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu who is the legal heir of Mr. Neelakandan and Mrs. Chiruthey. Here it is to be known that this is the second marriage of Mrs. Chiruthry who first was the wife of Late Mr. Madhavan. Mr. Madhavan’s death took place before the year 1910. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu the son from the second wedlock is claiming his rights over the property of the husband of the first marriage through the rights vested in the wife, that is the mother of Chandu, the then widow. Here the question of law was that did the then widow, Mrs. Chirthey have any rights to the property of the first husband upon her remarriage. Also were these rights transferable to the heir from the second wedlock.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves a suit property which is originally owned by Mr. Madhavan and the mother of Mr. Madhavan that is Mrs. Nangeli, who executed a mortgage deed in 1900. On the death of Mr. Madhavan in the year 1910 the then widow that is Mrs. Chiruthey decided to remarry. Mrs. Chiruthey married Mr. Neelakandan. Later a son was born named Mr. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu from this second marriage of Mrs Chiruthey. Execution of a lease deed involving the property was done by the son of Mr. Madhavan and Mrs. Chriuthey, (Mrs. Sankaran), mother of Mr. Madhavn (Nangeli), and the widow (Mrs. Chiruthey) in the year 1910. Subsequently, a re-lease deed was executed. Mr. Chandi the son of Mr. Neelakandan and Mrs. Chiruthey filled a suit for partion of the property claiming 8/20 share I the property through his mother that is Mrs. Chiruthey in the year 1985. Mr. Madhavan’s son, Mr. Sankaran too passed away in the year 1956, leaving the property in the hands of the legal heirs, represented as the plaintiffs.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether the widow retain any title to her deceased husband’s property after remarriage under the Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856?
Whether the lease deed and subsequent transactions validate claims made by the widow or her successors?

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff argued that the defendant, a widow upon remarriage did forfeit all her rights to her deceased husband’s property from the time she entered the second wedlock as per the Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant lacked the legal capacity the transfer such a property as she did not constitute under the legal ownership of the property through the deeds executed in the year 1910 and later.

The plaintiff was majorly dependent on the judicial precedent (Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu, (2000) 2 SCC 139) to establish that upon the remarriage of the widow she looses the rights over the late hudband’s properties.

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDENT

The defendant argued that the lease deeds which were executed in 1910 and later did provide a valid basis for the claim as the property never belonged to Madhavan as alleged by the notice of the petitioners but was in the name of Chiruthey and Kuttiperavan as per the deed executed on 14th July 1910.

They stood their ground, declaring that the deeds must shine as the undeniable proof of ownership, even in the face of the widow’s new wedlock.

In spite of the fact that the widow had remarried, they argued that the deeds should be recognized as evidence of ownership.

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

The case of Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Others primarily revolved around the interpretation of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and its implications on property rights. Here are the key principles applied in this case:

Cessation of Widow’s Rights on Remarriage: The central principle applied was that under Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, a widow’s rights here Mrs Chiruthey to her deceased husband’s property cease upon her remarriage. This principle was crucial in determining that Chiruthey, lost her title or interest in her first husband’s property upon her remarriage to Neelakandan. Therefore can be stated ap the given section the of the respective Act that the rights over the deceased properties are only until they are in the previous wedlock and upon death of the husband the female decides to remain widow.
Validity of Property Transactions: In this case court examined the validity of property transactions which were executed by the widow after her remarriage. It was held that any property transaction executed by the widow after her remarriage, without proper title, would not be legally valid or enforceable. This principle was applied to invalidate the lease deed executed by Chiruthey, as she had no legal right to the property after her remarriage.
Rights of Legal Heirs: The Court also considered the rights of legal heirs from the first marriage. It was established that the son from the first marriage, Mr. Sankaran who was impleaded as a defendant, retained his legitimate right to the property. The widow’s remarriage did not affect the rights of the legal heirs from the first marriage.
Partition Suit: The principles of partition under Hindu law were also applied. The Court analyzed the claims for partition made by the son from the second marriage and concluded that he could not claim any share in the property through his mother, as her rights had ceased upon remarriage. It stated that as she did not have any rights so she can not transfer her rights and even if she does it shall not be enforceable in nature.
Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in light of their legislative intent. The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, was interpreted in order to uphold the legislative intent of ceasing the widow’s rights to her deceased husband’s property upon entering a new wedlock.

These principles collectively led to the conclusion that Chiruthey’s son from her second marriage could not claim any share in the property through his mother, as her rights had ceased upon her remarriage.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that as per the Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 which precisely states that once a widow remarries or enters into a second wedlock she is devoid of the rights that she contained over the first wedlock’s husband’s properties. Once that is clear that the widow namely Mrs. Chiruthey lost her rights upon remarriage she is not entitled that is such a person if makes or indulges into any transactions the concerned property may not transfer enforceable rights in spite being executed through legal deeds.

The defendants of this appeal have no claim over the property via Chiruthey since she had lost her right over the relevant property when she entered a second marriage. Her status being that of a lessee, the ownership of the property could not be passed on to the original complainant. The appeal was approved by the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

According to this case judgement, the defendant was absolved of rights over the property because as per the Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 once a widow enters into a new wedlock she looses the rights over the deceased’s properties. I completely agree with this verdict. To curtail under the purview of such rights the widow must not remarry.

Section 2 in The Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856

2. Rights of widow in deceased husbands property to cease on her marriage

All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husbands property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors, or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express permission to remarry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as if she had then died; and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on April 9, 2024, in the case concerning the rights of a widow here Mrs. Chiruthey over deceased husband’s property upon her remarriage with Mr. Neelakandan. The case began from a suit for partition filed by Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu, who claimed 8/20 share in the property of her mother previous husband, Chiruthey, who had remarried after the death of her first husband, Mr. Madhavan (late).

The key issue was whether Mrs. Chiruthey did retain any title over the property derived from her first husband, Mr. Madhavan (first wedlock), after her remarriage to Neelakandan (second wedlock). The Court concluded that, according to the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, the widow’s rights(Mrs. Chiruthey) to her deceased husband’s (Mr. Madhavan) property ceased upon her remarriage. Consequently, Chiruthey’s son from her second marriage, Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu, could not claim any share or any part of the share in the property through his mother.

The Court also noted that the property in question better known as the suit property was originally owned by Mr. Madhavan and his mother, Mrs. Nangeli, who had executed a deed of mortgage in 1900. After Mr. Madhavan’s death, Mrs. Chiruthey remarried Mr. Neelakandan, and Mr. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Chandu was born from this second marriage. Initially the trial court had allowed the claim for partition in the deceased property, but the first appellate court dismissed the following suit. The High Court later restored the trial court’s judgment and decree. However, when the Supreme Court took the case and ultimately held that Mrs. Chiruthey’s title or interest over the said suit property had lapsed upon her remarriage, and thus, her son from the second marriage was not entitled to any share in the suit property. The Supreme Court of India emphasized that the contention that remarriage under the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act of 1856 terminates a widow’s rights to her deceased husband’s property. The decision emphasizes the importance of authentic title in property disputes and limits the dependence on procedural requirements to establish ownership.

Therefore, in my perspective, Justice Aniruddha Bose’s verdict in the KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS case was accurate and ethically sound.

REFERENCES

This article is written by Mansi Buddhadev student of Christ University, Pune – Lavasa; Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.