1

DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION

Sector 62, NOIDA-201309

A case analysis of
ATMA SINGH v. GURMEJ KAUR (D) (2017) 9 SCC 325

An assignment submitted to DME. Affiliated to

GURU GOVIND SINGHINDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
For partial fulfillment of
Degree of BB.A, LLB.
In lieu of internship
Submitted by

Name: - SIDDHARTH SAJWAN

Class: - BBA LLB
Section: -2 B
Batch: - 2018-23
Enrollment no. : -07151103518
E-mail: - sidsajwan20@gmail.com
Dated
 2

PREFACE

The project concerns with the case of Atma Singh v. Gurmej Kaur (D) (2017) 9
SSC 325. This case is on the principal of rightful ownership of the property of a
remarried mother on her deceased child. Does she have an absolute right over her
children’s property even after the remarriage or not. In this project the facts are
briefly stated, issues are raised with relevance to the laws applied in this case and a
complete analysis of the case is done in this project.
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks to gratitude to my teacher Durga ma’am

as well as our learned Director General Ravi Kant sir who gave me the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful work of writing a case comment/ analysis on
Atma Singh vs. Gurmej Kaur (D) and others. This assignment helped me in
understanding how Judicial Precedents are sources of law. I came to know about
the doctrine of ratio decidendi, obitur dictum and stare deices during my research
assignment.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents and my friends who helped me a lot in
finishing this assignment within the limited time period. I think DME, NOIDA is
the first college who is helping the students very effectively in their academic
pursuits in this tough lockdown period. Hence a lot thanks and appreciation to
DME management.

SIDDHARTH SAJWAN

BBA LLB 2ND year

 4

LIST OF CASES

1. Atma Singh vs. Gurmej Kaur (D) (2017)

2. Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (1976)
3. Uma Sahu vs. Sabriti Sahu (2017)
4. Murti Devi vs. Chhoti (deceased) through LRs Balwan (2018)
5. Mukhtiar Singh vs. Atma Singh Berar (1999)
 5

ATMA SINGH

V.

GURMEJ KAUR (D) AND ORS.

CITATION: - (2017) 9 SCC 325

Date of Judgment: - 13th September, 2017

Name of the Judges at the bench: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Name of the judge who gave majority opinion – Both of Them

Name of the judges who gave minority opinion – None

SUBJECT- Right of mother to succeed property of son

Hindu Succession Act 1956,
Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856
 6

Facts of the Case in brief: -

1. The plaintiff who is Atma Singh is been declared as owner and in joint possession of the
half share of the land owned by Pal Singh deceased son of Narain Singh. The family
consists of Narain Singh who had 3 children Atma Singh (the plaintiff), Mohan Singh
(the Respondent) and Pal Singh and Narain Singh’s wife been Gurmej Kaur (the
Defendant). Narain Singh was the owner of the land died in the year 1952 intestate i.e.
without forming any kind of will.

2. After the death of the owner Narain Singh, Gurmej Kaur immediately remarried with
Inder Singh. In 1972, Pal Singh son of Narain Singh died intestate and he had no wife
and no children. Then the estate of Pal Singh was transferred to his mother Gurmej
Singh.

3. After this the suit was filed against the mother Gurmej Singh by the appellant Atma
Singh. The Trial Court dismissed the case by declaring that as the defendant, Gurmej
Kaur is the real mother of the deceased Pal Singh, and she was considered in Class 1 Heir
which says that she would succeed to Pal Singh after his death. The appeal was filled by
the appellant was dismissed on 7th February 2006.

4. Then after that the appellant filed an appeal in High Court against the earlier decision of
the Trial Court. The High Court readdressed the decision of the trial court. The High
Court decided that the mother Gurmej Singh will lose the right in estate of the deceased
husband Narain Singh because of her remarriage. But she would have every right to
inherit the estate of her son, Pal Singh according to the section 8 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956. But the plaintiff was not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court.
 7

5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant had come with the support of the plaintiff that the
mother Gurmej Kaur will lose her all rights to inherit the property of the Narain Singh
and as well as of the his lineal descendants. It would clearly state that she is not entitled
to the property of Pal Singh. This argument was based on the Hindu Widow’s
Remarriage Act, 1856 as it was clear that the court didn’t considered the above act in
their decision.

6. In this the case the court has to decide the right of inheritance of the estate which was left
by the deceased Pal Singh that whether his mother Gurmej Kaur who has remarried after
the death of Narain Singh will succeed the Pal Singh or not

7. The friction between the two statutes is dealt in this case.

 8

Points for Determination/ issues Involved in the case

Following issues were involved for determination in this case:

Issue no.1: - whether Hindu Remarriage Act, 1856 prohibits the defendant Gurmej Kaur to
inherit the estate of the Pal Singh after his death.

Issue no.2: - does Hindu Succession Act 1956 gave all the power to the defendant Gurmej Kaur
all the right to inherit the estate of her deceased husband and his lineal descendants even after
she remarried after the death of her spouse Narain Singh.

Issue no.3: - is to decide whether the court follow the Hindu Succession Act 1956 or the Hindu
Remarriage Act 1856 for determining the right of inheritance of the Defendant.

Statues Involved: -

1. Section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856

2. Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3. Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Decision of the Trial Court: -

The suit filed by the Appellant Atma Singh on 7th February 2006 was that he argued that her
mother is not a legal heir after the remarriage and she cannot succeed her deceased son Pal
Singh. Thus after hearing the arguments the court dismissed and stated that the Defendant
Gurmej Kaur being the real mother of the deceased Pal Singh and according to Section 8 of
Hindu Succession Act 1956 it is stated that the mother is specified under class 1 heir which states
 9

that she will succeed to Pal Singh after his death despite of the fact that she remarried after the
death of her spouse Narain Singh. The trial court focused on that the after the remarriage she
would still be the mother of her children and this no one could take away from her. The court
only looked the case from only one point of view which was Hindu Succession Act 1956, thus
the plaintiff Atma Singh was not completely satisfied with the decision of the trial court. He
thought the court hasn’t considered all the possible outcomes that could restraint the defendant
Gurmej Kaur from acquiring the estate of Pal Singh after his death so he filed an appeal in High
Court.

Result: -

The plaintiff filed a case in the trial court appealing that the right of the widow mother on the
estate of her son’s property will diminish after she remarry another person. The trial court
dismissed the case by looking in the fact that after the widow remarries she still be the mother of
her children. So as a mother she will be entitled to succeed her children as she is mentioned in
the class 1 Heir of Hindu Succession Act 1956. Thus it gave all the right to the defendant Gurmej
Kaur to inherit the property of her deceased son Pal Singh. The court was focused on the fact that
the remarriage of her mother would not create any difference on the name of her relationship
with her children, she still be the mother of her children even after she remarries. The trial court
dismissed the case. The plaintiff Atma Singh was not satisfied by this decision of the trail court
as it seems that the court hasn’t considered all the possibilities which would question the
inheritance of estate of a remarried mother over her deceased son. The trial court doesn’t
considered Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 which could give a different opinion on the
case. So the plaintiff was not satisfied with the judgment and thus filed an appeal in the High
Court.

Decision of the High Court: -

 10

The High Court in its judgment reaffirmed the decision of the Trial Court as it stated that after
the death of Narain Singh, his wife Gurmej Kaur remarried which resulted in loss of her all rights
in the estate of Narain Singh but have all right to inherit the estate of her son i.e. Pal Singh. This
decision was taken with account to section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1856. The agreements
that were presented in the High Court were –

1. The Learned Counsel of the plaintiff in support of the previous decision by stating that
the provisions of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, which clearly state that after
remarriage Gurmej Kaur loses her right to inherit the property of Narain Singh and his
lineal descendants. Hence this concludes that she is not entitled to inherit the estate of Pal
Singh. It was submitted that Pal Singh died in the year of 1972, the Hindu Widow’s
Remarriage Act 1856 was in force and Gurmej Kaur was not entitled to inherit property
of the deceased father but was entitled to inherit the estate of Pal Singh.

2. Then the Learned Counsel of the Defendant refuted the above statement as the provisions
of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 are no longer applicable in view of the
overriding effect given in Section 4of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They said that the
mother Gurmej Kaur as being the natural mother of Pal Singh has the right to inherit his
estate after his death according to the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The issue remained for
the court was to decide whether the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 takes away the
right to inherit the estate of Pal Singh from Defendant Gurmej Kaur.
3. The earlier court has given the decision on the basis that the defendant was still the
mother of her children so as per Hindu Succession Act 1956 she will be considered in
class1 heir and she will be entitled to have the property of her deceased son, but the High
court viewed the case from broad point of view hey found the friction between the two
statutes i.e. Hindu Succession Act 1956 and Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856. So
the court has to deal with the friction in order to conclude the decision of this case.

4. The particularly main motive of creating the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 to
generally remove the entire legal obstacle to the marriage of the Hindu Widows in a
 11

generally major way. This specifically helps to legalize the legitimacy of the children a
Widow. This act literally helped those women who could not basically marry and had a
restriction imposed on them, sort of contrary to popular belief. As mentioned in the
Section 2 of the Hindu Women’s Remarriage Act “the rights of the Widow in actually
deceased husband’s property to for all intents and purposes cease on her remarriage kind
of is that all rights and interest which any widow may for the most part have in her pretty
deceased husband’s property by way of maintenance or by inheritance to her husband or
to his lineal successors or by any will or any testamentary disposition upon her, without
expressing permission to remarry, only a very limited interest in such property with no
power of alienating the same and if there basically is no sort of other person who could
succeeded the really deceased husband then the wife would definitely succeed and would
particularly be entitled to the property of the deceased.”

5. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 states that overriding effect in the article 1
which allowed that “any text or rule of Hindu law as part of the that law is force
immediately before the commencement of this act shall cease to have effect with respect
to any matter for which this provision is made. And any other law in force immediately
before the commencement of this Act shall apply to all Hindus so far as it is inconsistent
with any of provision contained in the Act”. This act gave the right to acquire the estate
of her husband and his legal descendants.

6. As in this case the court has to decide the right of inheritance of the estate which was left
by the deceased son Pal Singh who died in 1972, and he died intestate which means
without will and had no succession then the court looked into the Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 which states that

“The general rules of succession in case of male Hindu dying intestate shall be as
follows-

(a) Class 1 heir which includes son, daughter, widow, Mother etc.
 12

(b) If there is no heir of class 1 then class 2 heirs are chosen which includes father, son
etc.
(c) thirdly, if there is no class 2 heir then agnates of deceased
(d) Lastly, if there are no agnates then cognates of the deceased will be included”

6. So as mother is considered as Class 1 heir under section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956
and as there was no other class 1 heir member of the deceased Pal Singh, so she naturally
is legally entitled to succeed the estate of Pal Singh. But the learned counsel of the
plaintiff forcefully said that as the section 2 of Hindu Widow Remarriage Act 1856
doesn’t allow the defendant to succeed the state of Pal Singh. As the defendant has
remarried, she has lost all her rights of maintenance or inheritance to her husband of his
lineal successor which includes Pal Singh estate too.

The actually High court made their decision with the help of a case named Smt. Kasturi Devi vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976)4 SSC 674. “As in this case the court held
that the mother cannot be divested of her interest in her son’s property either on the ground of
unchastity or remarriage in a major way. This decision for the most part was based on that the
court only considers the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The case basically for all intents and
purposes was that a person called Madhav died in the year 1960 whose wife was the plaintiff
Kasturi. Kasturi for the most part remarried with Lekhraj in the year 1963. A person called Karua
who for all intents and purposes was son of Madhua and Kasturi actually dies in the year of
1970, demonstrating that the case basically kind of was that a person called Madhav particularly
died in the year 1960 whose wife actually was the plaintiff Kasturi. The question in the court
arose that what will particularly be the rightfull person to really inherit the property of Karua, or
so they actually thought.

The claim that Plaintiff Kasturi made really was before the actually High court was that she
particularly was the mother of her son and she mostly claimed the inheritance on the basis of the
 13

mother not on the basis of a widow of Madhua.The defendant Deputy Director of Consolidation
really said that the bar of inheritance would mostly be applicable to a mother as well as a widow
and on this ground he mostly refused to literally accept the claim of the plaintiff. The court also
favored the agreement of the Deputy Director. The court for all intents and purposes rejected the
definitely appeal of the plaintiff and mostly said that she could not for all intents and purposes
have been to kind of consider the right to particularly inherit estate of her son.” The above case
generally has kind of helped the basically High Court to actually reach the judgment which is
logical and reasonable, which actually is fairly significant.

As the Section 2 on the right of the widow who for the most part remarried will essentially be
entitled to all the rights and interests like any definitely other widow after the death of her spouse
gets in an ordinary way. As in this case the remarriage took place in 1952. Thus the widow
essentially has mostly lost all rights in the property of her husband or lineal descendants on
remarriage. Pal Singh died in year 1972, the question for the most part was regarding the
succession of estate of Pal Singh and the succession should actually be governed by Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not by Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856.

As by section 8 the mother as described in class 1 heir of the schedule shall for the most part
inherit the property of her son i.e. Pal Singh. Even after the remarriage of defendant Gurmej
Kaur she shall literally remain the mother of Pal Singh, who was born to her from her first
husband Narain Singh. So the court said that the succession will not be controlled by the section
2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856. It mostly is true that all rights in her husband and his
lineal successor’s property will specifically be lost by the widow on her remarriage. But section
2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 shall not be governor kind of regulate any future
succession to which she really is entitled under law. Even though in the year 1972, the act of
1856 act was in force and particularly said provision shall not control the succession as
mentioned in Section 8 of the 1956 act in an actually big way.
 14

Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 helped the court to solve the dispute between the two
statutes. As the section deals with the dispute between any provision or rule or interpretation of
Hindu law which came in force before or after the commencement of this act would be void or
not. If there is any law, rule etc. which is inconsistent to the provisions of the act would be
considered void or have a overshadowing affect over it. So as in this case the Section 4 of the
Hindu Succession Act 1956 dealt with an overriding effect particularly between the section 2 of
Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 and section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.

The decision said that by the section 4 of the act it was clear that any other act or law which
interfere or inconsistent to the Hindu Succession Act would be considered void or can be
overshadowed by any other statute, so in this case the section 2 of Hindu Widow Remarriage act
was considered irrelevant in this case as it was in dispute or inconsistent with the section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act 1956. So the case was decided on the basis of section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act 1956 which granted the defendant, mother Gurmej Kaur her right of inheritance.
The Learned Counsel for the defendant generally has specifically conveyed that a judgment
made in a case of “Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (1976) 4
SCC 674, in this court while considering Hindu Succession Act 1956 held that the mother cannot
be deprived of her interest in her son’s property on the ground of remarriage. So Gurmej Kaur
was legally granted her deceased son Pal Singh’s estate.

Result: -

So thus the Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 will not kind of affect the right of the
defendant Gurmej Kaur to actually succeed the estate of her son very Pal Singh and after the
death of for all intents and purposes Pal Singh she will really be legal rightful heir to basically
inherit the estate of fairly Pal Singh, which kind of is quite significant. The main question upon
 15

the court was to find the reasonable solution to end the dispute between the two contradicting
statues.

The plaintiff went to High Court as he was not satisfies or fulfilled by the decision of trial court.
The High Court judges HON’BLE Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and the other judge named HON’BLE
Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan looked into the fact that whether the widow mother who remarried
will still have the same right to inherit the estate of her children irrespective of the fact that after
the death of her husband she remarried, will that affect her rights over her children as she will
remain the mother of her child after the remarriage. The overriding effect between 2 statutes
Hindu Succession Act 1956 and Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 was shown in this case.
The benefit of this friction of the 2 statute benefitted the defendant as she was considered class 1
heir by the Hindu Succession Act 1956 of the deceased Pal Singh which gave her the right to
succeed him after his death. The Hindu Widow Remarriage Act 1856 was considered invalid in
this case as it was creating an overriding effect and it was inconsistent with the laws of Hindu
Succession Act 1956.

A large number of authorities have been in support of this view. We find ourselves entirely in
agreement with this view. There are texts in the Hindu Law under which it provides the mothers
interest in the property either on the grounds of unchastiy or remarriage. We feel that the
application of bar of inheritance to the Hindu widow is based on the special and peculiar, sacred
and spiritual relationship of the wife and the husband. After the marriage, the wife becomes an
absolute partner and an integral part of her husband and the principle on which she is excluded
from inheritance on remarriage is that when she breaks her link with her husband even though he
is dead and enters a new family, she is not entitled to retain the property inherited by her. The
same, however, cannot be said of a mother. The mother is in an absolutely different position and
that is why the Hindu Law did not provide that even the mother would be disinherited if she
remarried. The court after all consideration gave the judgment that the defendant was granted the
right of inheritance of estate of deceased Pal Singh. The suit filed by the plaintiff Atma Singh
really was correctly dismissed by all the courts.
 16

Principles of Law

It was held that decision of trial court was not sufficient for the plaintiff as the court only takes in
account the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The plaintiff went to High court and the approach the
court took was both in account of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and Hindu Widow’s Remarriage
1856.

Following are the principles laid down by the High Court: -

1. Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 states that the property of a Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to these provisions –
(a) Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule;
(b)Secondly, if there is no heir of class 1, then upon the heirs, being the relatives
specified in class 2 of the Schedule;
(c) Thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the
deceased; and
(d) Lastly, if there is no agnates, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

2. Section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 states that the Rights of widow in

deceased husband's property to cease on her marriage - All rights and interests which any
widow may have in her deceased husband's 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.
 17

3. The widow women after remarriage don’t loss any rights or interest from her husband’s
legal descendants.

4. In the above case there is a cascading effect on the right of widow as the section 5 of the
Hindu Succession Act 1965 has an overriding effect to any other law in force which
would immediately before commencement of the 1956 act is inconsistent with any
provision of the 1956 act will be overshadowed or declared null and void.

5. As section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage act 1856 have a cascading effect on the right
of widow shall be treated as over shadowed as by the virtue of section 8 of Hindu
Succession Act 1956.

RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE

As the friction between the two statutes i.e. Hindu Succession Act 1956 and Hindu Widow’s
Remarriage Act 1856 were solved in this case and some earlier cases which gave the restriction
on widow mother on acquiring the property of her deceased husband and his lineal descendants
after her remarriage.

Ratio Decidendi of the following cases were discussed and given in the above case: -

1. Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1

2. Uma Singh vs. Sabriti Sahu2

3. Murti Devi vs. Chhoti (deceased) through LRs Balwan3

4. Mukhtiar Singh vs. Atma Singh4

1
(1976) 4 SSC 674
2
(2017) HC
3
(2018) HC
4
(1999) HC
 18

CONCLUSION: -

The question aroused that the Defendant Gurmej Kaur who was a widow and remarried does she
have a right in his deceased son’s estate or not. The plaintiff Pal Singh argued on the basis of the
Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 that after remarriage the mother has no right on the estate
of the deceased husband or his lineal descendants. The defendant argued that in the Hindu
Succession Act 1856 it is mentioned that the defendant Gurmej Kaur is the real mother of the
deceased Pal Singh and thus Pal Singh has no other descendants which make the mother as class
1 heir and thus she would succeed after the death of Pal Singh. The High Court has difficulty in
the finding the right solution for this as the both statutes are contradicting each other. Thus the
court said that section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act states that any statute which contradicts
each other would be either overshadowed or considered null and void before the commencement
of the act. So the judge decision was that as after the re marriage Gurmej Kaur will still be
considered as the mother of Pal Singh and thus she is recognized under class 1 heir she will be
the right and legal successor of Pal Singh. Thus the High Court dismissed the case and gave the
estate of Pal Singh to his mother Gurmej Kaur.

This decision was made after considering a similar case named Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and others (1976)4 SSC 674. The judgment that the Judge gave was
appropriate as they took in account of the both the statue i.e. Hindu Succession Act 1956 and
Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856. The judgment that the court gave was on reasonable as
they took in account the overriding effect between the two statutes. By the help of earlier cases it
made the judgment clearer and simpler for the judges to make a decision to deal with the friction
between the two contradictory statutes. The judges made the decision which gave clarity to deal
with the contradictory statutes which are a question of law. By this case the friction between the
statutes were clearer and solved.
 19

COMMENTS: -

It is most respectfully submitted that in my opinion the decision of the High Court is very much
appropriate. This decision made clear the overriding situation of the statutes. The decision was
justified and reasonable. As the case was complicated as 2 statutes were over ridding each other
and the court used another cases judgment to come to a conclusion in this case. The court gave
the judgment after considering the other case. The High Court judges were the ones to make the
decision to give the inheritance right to a remarried mother or not over her children and which
lead to the distress between the two statutes and to solve the problem between the statutes the
High court judges made the right decision. As the made the decisions by looking into the distress
between the two statutes were reasonably correct. The court addressed all the issues and
argument, none of the issues was left unattended by the court. The decision that the judge took
was adequate and the reasoning was logical and consistent. The court made its decision after
considering all the arguments of both the parties and the friction between the Hindu Succession
Act 1956 and Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 were solved by the section 8 of the 1956 act.
The reasoning behind the judgment of the court was purely fair and logical. By using the earlier
cases the judgment was justified as the earlier cases has dealt with the problem of between the
distress between the two statute so it made the High court decision justified and more reasonable.
I find no other way or judgment that could end up more justified or reasonable than the decision
the High Court made.
 20

BIBLOGRAPHY

ACTS

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856

BOOKS

1. Kamal Law House: The Hindu Succession Act 1956 by Justice M. R. Mallick
1. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Bare Act
2. The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act 1856 Bare Act

DICTIONARIES

1. New Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edition

2. Black Law Dictionary, 11th Edition

WEBSITES

1. Lawoctopus.com
2. Legitquest.com