R.S.A.No.943 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.943 of 2009 Date of Decision : 25.08.2009 Pirthi Puri and others ...Appellants Versus Manohar Puri 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: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The legal heirs of the plaintiff, are in second appeal arising out of suit for declaration claiming the estate of Bhagtu Puri S/o Mansha Puri and that of Khushi Puri S/o Mansha Puri. It is the case of the plaintiff-Jeo that she is owner in possession of 12/77 share in the land, whereas the defendants are in possession of remaining 65/77 share. It is pointed out that one Mansha Puri was owner in possession of the entire land. He had six sons. The plaintiff was earlier married to Bhagtu Puri, who died somewhere in the year 1942. The plaintiff is said to have solemnized Kareva marriage with his brother Khushi Puri, which is recorded in mutation No.54 dated 5.2.1942. The plaintiff lived with Khushi Puri for about 6-7 years, but thereafter performed another Kareva marrige with Punnu Puri, another brother of R.S.A.No.943 of 2009 2 Bhagtu Puri. Punnu Puri died in the year 1978 and thereafter the present suit for declaration has been filed claiming the estate of Bhagtu Puri as his wife and that of Khushi Puri on account of having solemnized Kareva marriage with said Khushi Puri. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. The plaintiff had a right of maintenance from the estate of Bhagtu Puri, after his death, but having solemnized marriage with Khushi Puri in the year 1942, the plaintiff loses the right of maintenance against the estate of Bhagtu Puri as per the law then prevailing. The plaintiff solemnized kareva marriage with Punnu Puri, after she remained as wife of Khushi Puri for about 6-7 years, but during the life-time of Khushi Puri. The plaintiff had no interest in the estate of Khushi Puri during his life-time. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any estate as former wife of Khushi Puri. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as wife of Bhagtu Puri, her limited estate ripens into full ownership and, therefore, she is entitled to estate of Bhagtu Puri. Such argument is misconceived. The full ownership is vested in a female by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enacted w.e.f. 17.6.1956. Since, the plaintiff has performed Kareva marriage with Khushi Puri, prior to commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff cannot claim estate of Bhagtu Puri. Similarly, the plaintiff cannot claim any interest in the estate of Khushi Puri as she has performed Kareva marriage even before the succession of Khushi Puri R.S.A.No.943 of 2009 3 opened. The plaintiff solemnized Kareva marriage with Punnu Puri even prior to enacement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 25.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE