G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) Rajendra Kumar was married to one Sarla Gupta. Suits Nos. 23 and 24 of 1963 were filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad, by Rajendra Kumar against Sarla Gupta and by Sarla Gupta against Rajendra Kumar Under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution to their marriage. The suits were decreed on 8 -4 -1963. On 25 -5 -1963, Rajendra Kumar married Lila Gupta. On 7 -5 -1965, Rajendra Kumar died. Rajendra Kumar was the Bhumidhar of certain plots of land and disputes arose in consolidation proceedings between Lila Gupta claiming to have succeeded to the Bhumidhari as Rajendra Kumar's widow and Rajendra Kumar's brothers and brothers' sons who claimed to have succeeded to the Bhumidhari on Rajendra Kumar's death. The case set up by them was that Lila Gupta and Rajendra Kumar were not married and that, in law, no marriage could take place between them on the date it was alleged to have taken place. In other words, they disputed the factum of the marriage as well as the legality of the marriage. The legality was challenged on the ground that the marriage alleged to have taken place on 25 -5 -1963, was within one year of the decree of dissolution which was prohibited by Sec. 15 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer held that, in fact, no marriage had taken place between Rajendra Kumar and Lila Gupta and that, in law, no legal marriage could have been contracted by Rajendra Kumar or 25 -5 -1963. Against the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Lila Gupta went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the marriage of Rajendra Kumar with Lila Gupta on 25 -5 -1963, was established by the evidence. He further held that the question whether Rajendra Kumar and Lila Gupta could legally enter into a marriage on 25 -5 -1963, could not be allowed to be raised as it had not been specifically pleaded. He accordingly allowed the appeals and ordered the name of Lila Gupta alone to be entered against the plots. The orders of the Settlement Officer were challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. The Deputy Director has also held that Rajendra Kumar and Lila Gupta were married on 25 -5 -1963. He disagreed with the Settlement Officer that the question whether the marriage was in violation of Sec. 15 and was, on that account, illegal could not be raised. He went into this question but held that the marriage of Rajendra Kumar and Lila Gupta, though solemnized in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 15, could be deemed to be neither null and void nor even voidable. He accordingly held the marriage to be a good and binding marriage and on the basis thereof, held that Lila Gupta was the widow of Rajendra Kumar entitled to succeed to his Bhumidhari rights. In this view, he dismissed all the revisions The Petitioners have challenged the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and of the Settlement Officer.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has rightly not challenged the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer and the Dy. Director of Consolidation that the marriage of Rajendra Kumar with Lila Gupta was solemnised on 25 -5 -1963. The only contention, which he has raised, is that the marriage was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Act and was, therefore, illegal, that such a marriage could not confer the status of a widow on Lila Gupta on the death of Rajendra Kumar and that she was not entitled to succeed to the Bhumidhari rights.
(3.) Sec. 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in these words: 15. When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again: Provided that it shall not be lawful for the respective parties to marry again unless at the date of such marriage at least one year has elapsed from the date of the decree in the Court of the first instance.;