LAW FOR ALL

APEX COURT = .Sangli Widow's Right to Property Act of 1935 = Right of a widow to ask for partition - Upon the death of the husband of a Hindu woman while, though he continued to remain (as a member) in the Joint family, the widow shall become a 'Sahabhagidar' in place of (her) husband and she shall be entitled to claim by partition such share (Hissa) in the joint family properties which her husband could have claimed; provided that the word 'widow' shall not include a widow of a Hindu who shall not be entitled to claim partition under the Hindu Law. - The original plaintiff – Gunamma was a subject of 'Sangli State' which merged in the Union of India in the year 1948. There was a Sangli Widow's Right to Property Act of 1935 (Act No.1 of 1935) [hereinafter referred to as “the Sangli Act”] which governed, inter alia, the right of a widow to ask for partition. Under Section 1(E) of the Sangli Act, Hindu women who had become widows prior to the passing of the Sangli Act in the year 1935 were also entitled to claim the benefits of the provisions of the Sangli Act. = under Sections 3 and 4 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Proprty Act, 1937 Gunamma would not be entitled to an absolute right in any part of the property following the death of her husband. The position may be correct so far as the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 is concerned, particularly, in view of the provisions contained in Section 3(3) of the said Act. However, in the present case, it is the provisions of the Sangli Act which would govern the parties.-The concept of limited estate contained in Section 3(3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 do not find any reflection in the provisions of the Sangli Act - the provisionis of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 we are of the view that the said provision would have no application to the present case. As 14 already held by us, the plaintiff Gunamma was entitled to a share to the property of her husband Damodar way back in the year 1932 and, adoption being in the year 1978, on her death, the substituted plaintiff i.e. the adopted son must be understood to be legal heir in respect of the aforesaid property of the original plaintiff Gunamma. The argument raised on the strength of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, therefore, has to fail. the view taken by the three forums below would require correction. Accordingly, we set aside the decree of dismissal of the suit and decree the plaintiff's suit to the extent of the plaintiff's right to claim partition and separate possession of the suit property.