"·
.... SURJIT KAUR
v.
GARJA SINGH AND ORS.
OCTOBER 27, 1993
B [S. RATNAVAL PANDIAN ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 7.
Suit-Claim for possession of property by heirs of a deceased-Counter
C claim-Counter claimant stating that she was legally wedded wife of deceased
who had contracted Karewa form of marriage-Essential ceremonies of mar
riage neither set out nor pleaded-Held mere living as husband and wife does
not confer
the status of wife and
husband-Marriage held invalid-Counter
claimant held not entitled to
property.
D The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of the proper-
ty of one 'G', since deceased, and for a permanent injunction restraining
the appellant (first defendant), in whose favour the mutation of
in
heritance of deceased was sanctioned, from alienating the land in dispute.
Their claim
was that they are the nearest heirs of the deceased 'G' who had
E executed a will in their favour. The appellant (first defendant) contested
the
su1t on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of 'G' who had
contracted Karewa form of marriage with her and that after the marriage
both of them lived as husband
and wife.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was
F the legally wedded
wile of 'G' and that the will set up by the respondents
was not valid. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the first
Appellate Court.
On second appeal the High Court found
that (i) there was no
averment in the pleadings
~at the marriage of the appellant with 'G' was
G solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies; and (ii)
the essential ceremonies for a valid marriage were not performed. Act:ord
ingly, it held that· the appellant was not the wife/widow of 'G'. Further,
accepting the respondents' claim
that they are the nearest heirs of the
deceased the High Court held
that they would be entitled to succeed to the
H estate of 'G'.
428
S. KAUR v. G. SINGHfMOHAN, J.] 429
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant A
that (i) the High Court erred in holding that there was no averment in the
written statement as to the marriage; (ii) the ceremonies of marriage were
performed in the village and gur
was distributed which would prove the
marriage; and
(iii) in view of the judgment in Charan Singh, Hamam Singh
&Anr.
v. Gurdial Singh, Hamam Singh &Anr., A.I.R. (1961)
Punjab 301, no B
ceremonies were essential to a widow's re-marriage.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The High Court is right in its conclusion,
that the appellant
was not the wife/widow of 'G'. No custom was pleaded at all. Even the
evidence of the Appellant does not bring out as to what were the ceremonies
C
performed. Mere distribution of gur will not constitute the necessary
ceremony. This ·is not a case of widow's remarriage to the husband's
brother. 'G' was a stranger. Mere living as husband
and wife does not, at
any rate, confer the status of wife and husband. Accordingly, there
i~ no
warrant for interference with the judgment
of the High Court. D
[432-D, E, 431-H, 432-F, 433-B]
B.S. Lokhande &Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &Anr., [1965) 2 S.C.R.
837, relied on.
Charan Singh, Hamam Singh & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh, Hamam Singh E
& Anr., A.I.R. (1961) Punj. 301, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 221 of
1991.
From the Judgment and order dated 11.10.90 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court
in R.S.A. No.
1560/1978. F
J.S. Wasu and T.S. Arora for the Appellant.
P. Chidambaram, S. Ujjagar Singh, Surya Kant ~d Satish Vig for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
MOHAN, J. The facts leading to this Civil Appeal are as under :
G
The suit property in question was originally owned by one Gulaba
Singh. He died on September 5, 1969. The plaintiffs laid a suit No. 217/137 H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dhuri on 18.6.1970 for possession of
the suit property on the plea that they were the grand sons of the father's
brother of the said Gulaba
Singh. They also based their claim on the will
stated to have been executed by Gulaba
Singh in their favour on August
16, 1969. It was further averred in the plaint that the first defendant has
B no right, title or interest in the suit property. Her claim that she was validly
married to Gulaba
is baseless. The Karewa Nama dated
October 28, 1965
alleged to have been executed between Gulaba Singh and the first defen
dant
was a nominal transaction. In fact, the Karewa Nama recited that the
first defendant
was married to Bishan
Singh who died about four years ago
on April
22, 1964. The mutation of inheritance of the deceased was
C sanctioned in favour of the first defendant
Surjit Kaur. Therefore, it had
become necessary for the pl~tiffs to file a suit for possession of the land
and the house in question.
An additional plea
W$iS ·made for permanent
injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating the land in dis
pute.
D
The first defendant contested the suit on the ground that she was the
legally wedded
wife of Gulaba Singh who had contracted Karewa form of
marriage with her.
In evidence whereof a Karewa N ama dated
October 28,
1965 had been executed and the same has also been registered. After the
. marriage, both of them lived
as husband and wife. Gulaba
Singh had
E executed no will in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could not lay their
claim on the relationship with Gulaba Singh which is denied.
The second defendant Nachhattar Singh contested the suit contend
ing that Gulaba Singh had executed a
will in his favour on 1.9.1965 as a
result of which he became the owner
of the said property. It· was also
F denied by him that the deceased had executed any valid will in favour of
the plaintiffs or that the plaintiffs were related to Gulaba Singh.
On trial, it was held that the will set up by the plaintiffs was not valid.
Surjit Kaur was the legally wedded
wife of Gulaba
Singh. Accordingly, the
G suit was dismissed.
Aggrieved
by the dismissal of the said suit, the matter was taken up
in appeal before the learned Additional District
Judge, Sangrur in C.A.
No. 10/1974. By judgment and decree dated 27.5.1978, it was dismissed.
H Thereupon, Regular Second Appeal No. 1560/1978 was preferred to
r
S. KAUR v. G. SINGH (MOHAN, J.]
the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view A
that in the written statement, it had not been pleaded that marriage of
appellant Surjit Kaur with Gulaba Singh was solemnised in accordance with
the customary rights and ceremonies. Nor did she as DW4 state that the
marriage
was celebrated with customary ceremoneies in due from. Having
regard to
Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the essential ceremonies B
set out under the Act had not been conducted. Merely because, there was
distribution of sugar or
gur, that would not constitute a valid marriage. Surjit Kaur was in the habit of changing husbands frequently. Therefore,
she
is not the wife/widow of the
de<;eased Gulaba Singh. The respondents
having proved that they are the nearest heirs
of the deceased would be
entitled to succeed to the estate
of the Gulaba
Singh. In the result, the C
second appeal was allowed setting aside the concurrent findings.
Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court erred D
in holding that there was no averment in the written statement as to the
marriage
of the appellant with Gulaba
Singh. In fact, there is a mention in
paragraphs
13 and 16 of the written statement, Ex.
04 that Karewa Nama
also establishes the factum of marriage.
DWl speaks that the ceremonies
of marriage were performed in the village and
gur was distributed. That
would
be enough to prove marriage. It was
this evidence which has come E
to be accepted by the trial court and the court of firs.t appeal. Placing
reliance on Charan Singh, Ham.am Singh & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh, Ham.am
Singh & Anr.,, AIR (1961) Punjab 301, it is argued that no ceremonies are
essential to a widow's remarriage. Therefore, the judgment under appeal
has to
be set aside.
In opposition to this, the learned counsel for the respondents would
urge that in the written statement, there was no plea as to the custom
prevalent in the area which governs the parties. Further, the ingredients
of
F
the alleged custom and the essential ceremonies of the marriage were
neither set out nor pleaded. Hence, the High Court was right
in its G
conclusion. The custom must be proved to be ancient, certain and
reasonable if the court of law were to accept the same. Merely
because
they lived as husband and wife, the status of wife is not conferred as laid
down in
B.S. Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1965) 2
SCR
837. This is not a case of widow's remarriage to the husband's brother. H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Gulaba Singh was a stranger. Therefore, no exception could be taken to
the judgment of the High Court.
B
c
We have given our careful consideratiOn to the above arguments. In
. paragraphs
13 and 16 of the written statement, what is stated is reads as
under:
"Para No. 13 that my marriage took place with Gulaba Singh
and just because of that the agreement was executed on 28.10.1965
and that the marriage of the defendant with Gulaba Singh is right
and justified. I the defendant have no business and link with Nagar
Singh.
Para No. 16 is not admitted. I the defendant as were my own
will married Gulaba Singh the· deceased and remained as his wife
in his house."
D Therefore, it is clear that no custom was pleaded at all. The High
Court is right in its conclusion.
E
F
G
H
Even evidence of DW4 does not bring out as to what were the
ceremonies performed. Mere distribution of
gur will not constitute the
necessary ceremony.
Reliance placed on
Charan Singh's case (supra) is not correct be
cause that will apply only
if the widow were to marry the brother of the
husband. But, here Gulaba
Singh is a stranger. As rightly contended by the
respondent, mere living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, confer
the status ofwife and husband.
In B.S. Lokhande's case (supra) it was laid
down that the bare fact that the man and woman living
as husband and
wife does
no(, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband and
wife even though they may hold themselves out before the society as
husband and wife and the society treats them as such. The following extract
is useful for this purpose.
"Prima facie, the expression 'whoever ..... marries' must mean
. 'whoever ...... marries validly' or 'whoever ....... marries and whose
marriage is a valid one'.
If the marriage is not a valid one, according
to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void
by reason
of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife
of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a
valid
S. KAUR v. G. SINGH [MOHAN, J.) 433
marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law. The bare fact of a A
man and a woman living as hasband and wife does not, at any rate,
normally
give them the status of husband and wife even though
they
may hold themselves out before society as husband and wife
and the society treats them
as husband and wife."
Accordingly, we find no warrant for interference with the judgment B
of the High Court. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
In the pivotal property dispute case of Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court of India delivered a definitive ruling on the validity of a Karewa Form of Marriage and clarified the necessity of proving Essential Ceremonies of Marriage. This judgment, prominently featured on CaseOn, remains a critical reference for understanding the legal distinction between a valid customary marriage and mere cohabitation, emphasizing that living together does not automatically confer the legal status of husband and wife.
The legal battle began when the respondents filed a suit for possession of property belonging to the deceased, one 'G' (Gulaba Singh). They claimed to be his nearest heirs and the beneficiaries of a will executed in their favour. Their claim was contested by the appellant, Surjit Kaur, who asserted that she was the legally wedded wife of 'G' through a 'Karewa' form of marriage and had lived with him as such. She contended that as his widow, she was the rightful heir to his estate.
The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court sided with Surjit Kaur, holding her marriage to be valid and dismissing the respondents' suit. However, on a second appeal, the High Court overturned these concurrent findings. It reasoned that the appellant had failed to plead or prove that her marriage was solemnized with the necessary customary rites and ceremonies. Aggrieved by this reversal, Surjit Kaur appealed to the Supreme Court.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a marriage can be considered legally valid based solely on long-term cohabitation and the execution of a 'Karewa Nama' document, without specifically pleading and proving that the essential customary ceremonies for such a marriage were performed.
The Court's decision was anchored in established legal principles governing Hindu marriages and customary law:
The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the appellant's claims and found them legally untenable for several reasons:
The Court observed that Surjit Kaur’s written statement simply asserted that a marriage took place. It crucially failed to plead the existence of a specific custom governing the Karewa Form of Marriage that would dispense with standard ceremonies or establish alternative ones. Without such a plea, there was no legal basis for the court to consider the validity of the alleged custom.
The only evidence offered to prove the marriage was the claim that 'gur' (jaggery) was distributed in the village. The Court held that this act did not constitute one of the Essential Ceremonies of Marriage. The appellant provided no further evidence of what specific rites, if any, were performed to solemnize the union, rendering her claim unsubstantiated.
Legal professionals often grapple with nuanced interpretations of customary law. Analyzing rulings like this is crucial. CaseOn.in provides 2-minute audio briefs that cut through the complexity of such judgments, helping you quickly grasp the core principles and arguments.
The appellant relied on the case of *Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh*, arguing it established that no ceremonies were needed for a widow's remarriage. The Supreme Court distinguished this precedent, noting that *Charan Singh* applied to a specific custom where a widow remarries her deceased husband's brother. In the present case, Gulaba Singh was a stranger to the appellant's first husband, making the precedent entirely inapplicable.
Reaffirming the principle laid down in the *B.S. Lokhande* case, the Court made it clear that a legally valid marriage is not created by conduct alone. While the appellant and the deceased lived together as husband and wife, this cohabitation did not remedy the absence of a properly solemnized marriage. A marriage, the Court reiterated, must be valid “in the eye of law,” not just in the eyes of society.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment. It concluded that Surjit Kaur had failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Her marriage was held to be invalid due to the complete lack of pleading and proof of essential ceremonies. Consequently, her appeal was dismissed, and her claim to the property was denied.
The Supreme Court's judgment in *Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh* firmly establishes that a party claiming marital status under a customary form of marriage must specifically plead the custom and prove the performance of the essential rites associated with it. The ruling clarifies that long-term cohabitation, while a relevant factor, cannot be a substitute for a legally valid marriage solemnized in accordance with the law. This decision prioritizes the strict requirement of proof for marital ceremonies over the mere appearance of a marital relationship.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content is intended to be a simplified analysis of a judicial pronouncement and should not be relied upon for any legal action. For specific legal advice, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....