Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was then filed by Chander Pal in the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated May 11, 1979. The High Court has quashed the orders passed by the Consoli- dation Authorities and directed the Deputy Director (Consol- idation) to decide the revision of Chander Pal afresh on the basis of the decision given in the writ petition. The High Court has held that the consolidation authorities erred in deciding the matter on the basis that Smt. Sukhia's marriage with Gopal Singh was not proved to be legal and, therefore, Smt. Sukhia's possession of the holding till the time of her death was merely as widow of Chain Sukh. It was pointed out that in view of appellant Smt. Mainia's clear admission that Smt. Sukhia was remarried to Gopal Singh in "Karwa" form, according to caste custom, after Chain Sukh's death and that they had been living together as husband and wife for sever- al years no further proof of legality of the remarriage was necessary. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director Consolidation, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1557 for reaching its conclusion and it was held that this strong presumption of validity of Smt. Sukhia's remar- riage with Gopal Singh was not rebutted by the entry in the family register which continued to show Smt. Sukhia as the widow of Chain Sukh. Consequently, it was held by the High Court that the finding of the consolidation authorities that Smt. Sukhia's interest in the holding continued to be as widow of Chain Sukh was a manifest error of law. The High Court then proceeded to examine the legal consequences of Smt. Sukhia remarriage with Gopal Singh prior to the date of vesting i.e., 1.7.1952 under the Zamindari Abolition Act and her continuous possession over the holding after her remar- riage. It was held by the High Court that the effect of the provisions of the Tenancy Act was that her interest in the holding after her remarriage was in her own right and not as widow of Chain Sukh; and therefore, by virtue of section 180(2) of the Tenancy Act she acquired an independent right which did not devolve upon her death to Chain Sukh's sister, appellant Smt. Mainia, but to her son Chander Pal born to her after her remarriage with Gopal Singh. It is on this basis that the High Court has directed the Deputy Director, Consolidation, to decide respondent No. 4, Chander Pal's revision afresh. Hence this appeal by special leave. Shri P.N. Lekhi, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Mainia, has assailed the decision of the High Court substan- tially on the ground that Smt. Sukhia's interest in the holding continued till her death only as widow of Chain Sukh since her initial interest in the holding was by revolution as widow of Chain Sukh under section 35 of the Tenancy Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended before us that Smt. Sukhia's remarriage with Gopal Singh was not proved and, therefore, the consequences of remarriage, if any, did not arise. He argued that Smt. Sukhia's name was recorded throughout only as the widow of Chain Sukh which negatived the case of her remarriage with Gopal Singh after the death of Chain Sukh. He argued that since the possession of Smt. Sukhia till her death in 1965 was as widow of Chain Sukh, there was no occasion for attracting the provisions contained in section 180(2) of the Tenancy Act. It was urged that on the death of Smt. Sukhia in 1965 the succession was governed by section 172 read with section 171 of the Zamind- ari Abolition Act on account of which by virtue of clause

The effect of the statutory provisions on the continued possession of Smt. Sukhia in this altered status has, there- fore, to be examined.

The relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act may now be noticed. Admittedly, succession to the interest of Chain Sukh on his death was governed by section 35 of the Tenancy Act according to which the interest of Chain Sukh in the holding devolved upon Smt. Sukhia as his widow in the ab- sence of any male lineal descendant in the male line of descendant. Section 36 of the Tenancy Act is as under:

The result is that according to section 36 on the remar- riage of Sukhia with Gopal Singh the interest devolved in accordance with the order of succession laid down in section 35 on the heir of the last male descendant, that is, Chain Sukh but appellant Smt. Mainia, married sister of Chain Sukh, not being one of the heirs of Chain Sukh according to section 35 of the Tenancy Act, the interest did not devolve on Smt. Mainia.

The continued possession of Smt. Sukhia thereafter attracted section 180 of the Tenancy Act, the relevant portion of which is as under: