JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court after reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. ( 2. ) THE following facts as found by the Courts below were not in dispute before this Court: (i) That Chhabilal and Samayalal were real brothers. Respondent-defendant No. 1 Mankunwar Bai is the widow of Samayalal. (ii) The suit land belonged to Chhablal. On his death, the same was inherited by his son Udal. Dukalabai was the widow of Chhabilal, but she had remarried during the life time of Udal as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement. (iii) Udal died in the year 1957 and his wife Ratni Bai had already remarried. ( 3. ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, Dukala Bai the mother of Udal claimed the suit land on the ground that on the death of Udal, she was the only heir to inherit the property left by him being his mother inasmuch as ratni Bai the wife of Udal had already remarried. (During the pendency of this second appeal, however, Dukala Bai died and Ratni Bai has been substituted in her place ). Thus, the claim made in the plaint was that, after the death of Udal, Mankunwar Bai could not get any right, title or interest on the suit land left by Udal and the same devolved on Dukala Bai, being the mother of Udal. ( 4. ) MST. Mankunwar Bai, claiming herself to be the owner after the death of Udal, had transferred the suit land in favour of respondent-defendant no. 2 Chitgovind. ( 5. ) THE case of the defendant was that since Dukala Bai had already remarried, she lost all her rights to inherit the suit land even after the death of udal, because the property was originally of Chhablal, her first husband. The remarriage of Dukala Bai deprived her of all the rights to inherit the suit property and, therefore, Mst. Mankunwar Bai, beidg the widow of Samayalal, who was the brother of Chhablal and was the only heir to inherit and as such, she became the rightful owner and the alienation made by her in favour of defendant No. 2 was valid. The contention of the defendant found favour with the lower appellate Court. Mankunwar Bai, beidg the widow of Samayalal, who was the brother of Chhablal and was the only heir to inherit and as such, she became the rightful owner and the alienation made by her in favour of defendant No. 2 was valid. The contention of the defendant found favour with the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court was of the opinion that Mst. Dukala Bai, upon her remarriage, was divested of her husbands property and, therefore, she could not inherit the same even after the death of udal, her son. ( 6. ) ON behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the lower appellate court erred in law in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The argument was that, after the death of Udal, Mst. Dukala Bai inherited the suit land not as the widow of Chhablal, but as the mother of Udal, and, therefore, her remarriage during the life time of Udal did not come in her way to inherit the suit land. ( 7. ) IN my opinion, the lower appellate Court was definitely under grave error of law in concluding that Mst. Dukala Bai could not inherit the suit land even after the death of her son Udal on the ground that she had remarried irrespective of the fact that the son died after her remarriage. ( 8. ) DOES a mother claim a right on her sons property on the basis that she was the wife of the father of her deceased son ? I think the answer is no. As a matter of fact, she succeeds to the property of her son as his mother. She does not cease to be a mother only because she has taken second husband. In the present case, at the time of remarriage of Mst. Dukala Bai, the suit property belonged to her son and at that time, she had only the limited interest in the said property. The effect of her remarriage was that she was divested of her limited interest. Her remarriage did not destroy the relationship by blood, i. e. of mother and son. Thus, there is a difference in the case of a widow claiming inheritance to her deceased husband and that of inheritance to her son. The effect of her remarriage was that she was divested of her limited interest. Her remarriage did not destroy the relationship by blood, i. e. of mother and son. Thus, there is a difference in the case of a widow claiming inheritance to her deceased husband and that of inheritance to her son. The remarriage will disentitle the widow-to inherit the property from her husband but it will not disentitle her to inherit the property of her son, being the mother when the son dies after remarriage. This view has been repeatedly taken and is now, more or less established as far back as in 1868 (the decision of the Full Bench of Calcutta high Court reported in Akora Suth v. Boreani1 is the leading case ). This view i71i868yitw R 82=2 Beng. L R A Cm was thereafter followed by Madras High Court in Lakchmana v. Sasomulyani ( (1905) 28 ILR Mad. 425=15 M L J 245), and thereafter it has been followed by various High Courts. A Division bench of Patna High Court also relied on the same in the case reported in mt. Palti v. Nirdhan Gope ( AIR 1924 Pat. 233. ). The Judicial Commissioner of the Central provinces also took the same view in a case reported in Apa v. Damdia (NLR 149) by holding that a remarried Hindu widow was entitled to succeed to the property left by her son born of her first marriage when the son died after remarriage. ( 9. ) ON behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Bhondu Ganpat Kirad end others v. Ramdayal Govindram Kirad and another (NLR 149 ). I have gone through the said decision and find that the same is clearly distinguishable. The question which arose in that case, and was referred as question No. 1 to the Full Bench for being answered was whether the property inherited by a Hindu widow from her son is divested on account of her subsequent remarriage and the same was answered in affirmative. ( 10. The question which arose in that case, and was referred as question No. 1 to the Full Bench for being answered was whether the property inherited by a Hindu widow from her son is divested on account of her subsequent remarriage and the same was answered in affirmative. ( 10. ) A close scrutiny of the decision of the Full Bench reveals that the question whether the rights of widow to inherit to her son after her remarriage also extended to her husbands property devolved upon her son would be forfeited due to remarriage which had taken place during the life time of the son actually did not arise for consideration by the Full Bench and as such was specifically left open. However, the Full Bench categorically observed in paragraph 4 of the judgment that section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage act, 1856 was restricted in its operation to the property of a Hindu, which his widow had already inherited either directly from her husband or through lineal descendants before her remarriage. It was further observed that by virtue of the provisions of section 5 of the same Act, a widow shall not by reason of her remarriage, forfeit any property or any right to which she would otherwise be entitled. ( 11. ) A widow, therefore, upon her remarriage forfeits her rights and interest in her husbands property which is already vested in her, but she retains unimpared rights to inherit to husbands lineal descendants if the inheritance opened after remarriage. The reason was that though the remarriage puts an end to the connubial relationship, it does not affect consanguinity. ( 12. ) THUS, it is apparent that the decision of the Full Bench relied upon by the lower appellate Court was not a decision on the point involved in the present case, where the widow had already remarried during the life time of her son. In my opinion, her right to inherit to her son was not affected by the remarriage. On the death of his father, Udal became sole exclusive owner of the property and at the time of his death, the property belonged to him alone. Mst. Dukala Bai was entitled to inherit the same as his mother which relationship was not determined by her remarriage. Under these circumstances, the suit land did not devolve on Mst. On the death of his father, Udal became sole exclusive owner of the property and at the time of his death, the property belonged to him alone. Mst. Dukala Bai was entitled to inherit the same as his mother which relationship was not determined by her remarriage. Under these circumstances, the suit land did not devolve on Mst. Mankuwar, the defendant No. 1 and the sale made by her in favour of Chitgovind defendant No. 2 did not convey any right, title or interest. No other point was pressed. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the claim of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land, are restored. Counsels fee at Rs. 50 if certified. Appeal allowed.