Second Appeal No.434 of 1939
Judges : Iqbal Ahmad , C.J and Dar , J
Judgement date : Apr 15, 1942
Brief Facts :
This is an appeal by Musammat Rao Rani , defendant, arising out of a suit for profits filed in the Revenue Court by Musammat Gulab Rani ,Plaintiff-Respondent, under section 226 of the Agra Tenancy Act(3 of 1926).
The parties to the suit are widows of a lodh named Ram Adhar. Ram Adhar died in the year 1926 leaving certain zamindari property. It was contended between the parties in the revenue court that they will have equal shares as against the properties left by Ram Adhar , and that , if either of the widow remarries than she would forfeit her interests in the properties , and the other widow in that case , will be entitled to the whole of the properties.
Sometime after this compromise , Mst. Gulab Rani remarried, left Ram Adhar’s home and went to, live in her new husband’s home in a different village.
It is a matter of admission that by the custom governing the caste to which the parties belong, even after remarriage , rights of widows are sustained in the property of deceased husband.
After the mutation case Rao Rani was appointed lambardar and has all along continued to be lambardar. By the suit givind rise to present appeal Gulab Rani claimed her share of the profits of Ram Adhar from Rao Rani.
Contentions by Appellant
- According to compromise in the mutation case , Gulab rani should forfeit her rights in Ram Adhar’s property, after her remarriage.
- The second plea raised by Musammat Rao Rani was not pressed in the Courts below and was abandoned.
Contentions by Respondent
It was contended by the Respondent that the compromise referred in the mutation case was in restraint of marriage within the meaning of Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act and was, therefore, void.
Principles laid down
The principle laid down in lowe vs. peers, that agreement in restraint of marriage is void, was acknowledged. But it was apprehended a widow after remarriage loses her rights in the deceased husband’s property.
Judgement
The court held that if widow elect to remarry, she would be deprived of her rights in her husband’s property. Also, this does not impose any restraint to marriage.
Dissected by Suyash Tripathi