1. Heard Shri Dharm Vir Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and perused the record.
2. Challenge in the writ petition is orders dated 11.06.2018, 20.02.2019 and 25.06.2021 passed by respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. Present petition is arising out of proceeding initiated under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").
3. Factual matrix of the present writ petition is that Smt. Lalwati(petitioner) was previously married with one Kishan Lal and out of their wedlock on son borned namely Vipin. After death of Kishan Lal, his wife Smt. Lalwati had remarried on 1.6.2002 with Sureshpal. Subsequently, on 27.12.2013 Vipin died unmarried. After his death dispute arose with respect to his succession. There are two claimants over the agricultural property of deceased Vipin; (1) Smt. Lalwati (Mother of decesed, who remarried) (2) Smt. Chhoti (Grand-Mother). One objection was filed by Smt. Lalvati (present petitioner), under section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act claiming her right and title being the remarried mother of Vipin.
4. Second objection was filed by Smt. Chhoti, being the grand-mother of Vipin. All the three Consolidation Courts have discarded the claim of the petitioner, Smt. Lalvati, on the ground that remarried mother has no claim over the property of son who was born out of wedlock with the previous husband.
5. The question for consideration arises as to whether a Hindu widow, who remarried after death of her husband, can inherit the agricultural property of her son through first marriage under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolidation and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner made emphasis on Section 171(2)(b) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, wherein phrase used as 'mother and father'. Section 171 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act reads as under :
?171. General order of succession-(1).......
(i)...........
(ii).......
(iii)......
(iv) the widow or widowed mother or father's widowed mother or the widow of any predeceased male lineal descendant who would have been an heir, if alive, shall inherit only if she has not remarried.
(2) the following relatives of the male bhumidhar or assami are heirs subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), namely :-
(a) widow, unmarried daughter and the male lineal descendant per stirps;
Provided that the widow and the son of a predeceased son how low-so-ever per stirps shall inherit the share which would have devovled upon the predeceased son had he been alive;
(b) mother and father ;
(c)..........................
?..............................
?................................?
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of petitioner's claim, has interpreted the word 'mother' in wider sense which includes 'widowed mother', who has remarried.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that word 'mother' as used under Section 171(2)(b) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act excludes the widowed mother who has remarried. In support of his case, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent has cited the Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Parshanti Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1567.
8. Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties.
9. Order of succession is enunciated under Section 171 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the modalities for the purposes of devolution of the property is provided under Section 171 (1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Legislation has recognized conditional right to the widow, being successor, under the law. In the eventuality of remarriage, a widow cannot claim her inheritance. It is explicit under Section 71 (1) (iv) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act that the widow or widowed mother or father's widowed mother or the widow of any predeceased male lineal descendant who would have been an heir, if alive, shall inherit only if she has not remarried. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that old law, as prevailing before 2004, will apply in the present matter. I am not convinced with such submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, cause of action arose on 27.12.2013 on which date Vipin died intestate. Present provision as exists on the relevant date under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will prevail and succession will be decided accordingly. Neither in old provisions of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act nor, after 2004, in new provisions under aforesaid section, claim of widow, who has remarried, has been recognized by the Legislation. Perusal of aforesaid section explicits that the Legislation never intended to transfer the property of one family to another family where widow has shifted owning to her remarriage. The word "mother" as used under Section 171 (2) (b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, should be read and interpreted in consonance with the provisions as embodied under Section 171 (1) (iv) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicit that present petitioner cannot lay her claim, being widowed mother (who had remarried), to the property of her son Vipin born through previous marriage, inasmuch as, the claim of inheritance made by widow or widowed mother or father's widowed mother or widow of any predeceased male lineal descendant, who has remarried, has not been recognized under law.
10. In the matter in hand, it is not disputed that petitioner had remarried after death of her first husband, therefore, her claim cannot be recognized under law as discussed above. Claim of Smt. Chhoti (respondent no.1) being successor of Vipin should be preferred over the claim of present petitioner, who had remarried.
11. In the case of Parshanti (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has accepted the plain and simple meaning of "mother" as used u/s 171(2)(b) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and expounded that widowed mother, who has remarried, can not lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage. Relevant para no.2 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
"2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a Hindu widow who after the death of her husband remarries another person can lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage, if that property happens to be agricultural land. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a three-Judge Bench in Kasturi Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation [(1976) 4 SCC 674: (1977) 2 SCR 25]. This Court applying the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on principles governing Hindu law answered the question in the affirmative stating that in such a situation she is no claiming as the widow of her first husband but is laying a claim as the mother of the predeceased son. Their Lordships did not apply the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the facts of that case of their Lordships attention was not drawn to the special law, Section 171(b) whereof, in terms, excludes a widowed mother, who has remarried. The plain language of this provision in the special law, therefore, clearly excludes the widowed mother, who has remarried, from claiming a share by inheritance from the property of her son born out through the first husband. That being so, in the facts of this case, the decision in Kasturi Devi case does not apply. In that Case, this Court was not applying the provisions of Section 171(b) of the U.P. law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the authorities below were right in holding that in view of this special provision her claim was not justified."
12. In this conspectus as above, I do not find any substance in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner who has failed to point out any illegality and perversity in the order passed by all the three Consolidation Courts. Claim of present petitioner has rightly been discarded by the Consolidation Courts. Being remarried mother, she has no claim over the agricultural property of her son who was born out of wedlock with the previous husband.
13. Present writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Sachin/Manish Himwan