MANTORABAI Vs. PARETANBAI
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by mantorabai (defendant) against the confirming judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he held that the defendant-appellant having remarried in Churi form defendant No. 2 Sunder, she has lost all her rights and interests in the property of her former husband Amru.
(2.) PARETANBAI (Plaintiff-respondent No. 11 had filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant and respondent No. 2 Sunder from the house as well as the land situated at village Rani Dera left by Amru some 17 years back on his death. She alleged that she was the legally married wife of Ramkhilawan, son of Amru, and Amru on his death, left Ramkhilawan and the appellant, his widow, as his heirs. According to her Mantorabai (appellant) married Sunder (respondent No. 2) some six years before she filed the suit and on account of her remarriage, she lost all her rights and interests to the property of her husband Amru. She further alleged that her husband, Ramkhilawan, died in July 1960, and the appellant had taken possession of the house as well as the land forcibly to which she was not entitled according to law, and hence the suit.
(3.) THE defendant-appellant had resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not the widow of her son Ramkhilawan and Amru died some 12 years back, and she being his widow, was entitled to the half of his property along with the son ramkhilawan. She also averred that she had not remarried Sunder (respondent 2), and further alleged that the widow, even if she has gone unchaste, would not lose her rights to the property left by her deceased husband.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.