Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., discusses the decision of trial Court and first Appellate Court with regard to alienation of the property of a deceased by his alleged wife.
Facts of the instant case relate to the dispute in property left by Sukhdev. Both Sukhdev and his wife died issue-less.
Plaintiff claimed that he is the brother of Sukhdev and after the death of Sukhdev, he inherited the property left by Sukhdev and Shanti Bai, whereas defendant 1 alternatively claimed that she had married Sukhdev Sukhdev in Chudi form and became his wife thereafter, got her name mutated in the revenue record.
Plaintiff submitted that defendant 1 has no relationship with the family of Sukhdev and has illegally got her name mutated.
Trial Court
Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit property was the joint family property of Sukhdev and Anirudh Prasad Kamal Sen — plaintiff and defendant 1 is not the wife of Sukhdev and therefore the alienation made by defendant 1 — Dashmat bai in favour of defendant 1 is null void.
First Appeal | Second Appeal
On appeal being preferred before the first appellate Court by defendants 1 & 2 being dissatisfied with the judgment & decree of the Trial Court, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment & decree of the Trial Court and eventually dismissed the suit feeling aggrieved against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC in which substantial questions of law.
Analysis & Decision
CUSTOM
Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down conditions for a Hindu marriage and Section 7 lays down ceremonies for a Hindu marriage by providing that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.
Section 29 of the Act of 1955 saves the rights recognised by custom or conferred by special enactment to obtain the dissolution of marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of the Act.
Section 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines the expressions “custom” and “usage”.
Bench stated that Custom must have been observed for a long time and must be ancient.
Customs will have to be always strictly proved and in relation to matrimonial matters particularly to the existence of customs.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Yamanaji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala, (2002) 2 SCC 637 has held that custom being an exception, the general rule of divorce ought to have been specifically pleaded and established by leading cogent evidence by the person propounding such custom.
Principle of law laid down in Yamanaji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala, (2002) 2 SCC 637, was followed with approval by the Supreme Court in the matter of Subramani v. M. Chandralekha, (2005) 9 SCC 407, by holding that as per Hindu law, divorce was not recognised as a means to put an end to marriage which was always considered to be a sacrament, only exception being where it was recognised by custom.
Now, coming back to the instant case, the dispute was with regard to the property left by Sukhdev who is the brother of the plaintiff. Whereas, defendant 1 claiming to be the wife of Sukhdev in Chudi form, alienated the suit property to defendant 2 which has been questioned in the suit.
It has also been alleged that Dashmat bai had married two other people prior to her alleged marriage with Sukhdev, though there was no evidence on record in regard to her divorce with the other two people.
Father of Dashmat bai, Jaitram (DW-1) categorically stated that he was not present at the time when Dashmat bai allegedly entered into marriage in Chudi Form with Sukhdev, which is quite unnatural that father was not present at the time of such important ceremony.
Similarly, Dashmat Bai herself could have entered into the witness-box and offered herself for cross-examination in absence of which adverse inference could be drawn against her.
As there was no iota of evidence of marriage having been taken place between Dashmat Bai and Sukhdev in view of the testimony of her father Jaitram (DW-1) and another witness DW-2, as they were not present in the said alleged marriage and in view of the fact that defendant 1 Dashmat Bai did not offer herself for cross-examination, adverse inference against her has to be drawn.
Hence, in view of the discussion, it can be said that no relationship of husband and wife existed between the defendant 1 and Sukhdev.
The question that needs to be answered is whether, by the alienation made by defendant 1, title was conveyed to defendant 2?
Supreme Court in its decision of Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259, dealt with the question of competency of a person to transfer property and transfer of property by a person without rights, wherein the following was held:
“7. Since Mangal Kumhar did not have an exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, his widow Etwari Kumharin was not legally competent to sell the suit property to the appellants, purporting to be the sole owner of the property. Reliance is placed on Eureka Builders v. Gulabchand, (2018) 8 SCC 67 wherein this Court held: (SCC pp. 75-76, paras 35-36)
“35. It is a settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise. In other words, whatever interest a person is possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer only that interest to the other person and no other interest, which he himself does not possess in the tangible property.
36. So, once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer.”
(emphasis supplied)
Court held that the alienation made by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 holding her to be the wife of Sukhdev as the property was originally owned by Sukhdev, is clearly void.
In view of the above discussion, decree be drawn up accordingly. [Anirudh Prasad Kamal Sen v. Dashmat Bai Suryavanshi, Second Appeal No. 93 of 2009, decided on 28-08-2020]
