RSA No. 676 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 676 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009 Pala Ram ......Appellant Versus Smt. Kaushalya Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, Senior Advocate, with Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Plaintiff No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the land in dispute was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs is that they along with their brother Rameshwar Dass were the owner of the property in villages Sarangpur and Dhanas. The defendant was married to Rameshwar Dass in the year 1958. Rameshwar Dass is not heard of for the last 40 years i.e. from 13.4.1964 and, therefore, he is presumed to have died on 13.4.1972. Subsequently, the defendant re-married with Sarup Singh, but even Sarup Singh died. The plaintiff claimed that after the marriage of defendant with Sarup Singh, she has lost right in the estate falling to the share of RSA No. 676 of 2008 (2) Rameshwar Dass and consequently sought the declaration to this effect. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding that in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short `the Act'), the defendant has acquired absolute title as a Class-I heir and not as a limited owner and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Hindu Widows Re-Marriage Act, 1856 was repealed by the Hindu Widows' Re- Marriage (Repeal) Act, 1983 (Act No. 24 of 1983) with effect from 31.8.1983, whereas the defendant has solemnised marriage with Sarup Singh in the year 1981 and thus, the defendant after her re-marriage, will lose title over the suit property. The said argument is not tenable for the reason that the provisions of Section 14 of the Act will supercede the provisions of Hindu Widows Re-Marriage Act, 1856, being a later Central Act. Under Section 14 of the Act, the limited estate possessed by the widow would become absolute on the commencement of the Act. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 6.7.2009 ds