BHAGAT RAM (D) BY LRS. A

v.

TEJA SINGH (D) BY LRS.

NOVEMBER 6, 2001

[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B

Hindu Law:

Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sections 15(1) and (2).

Female Hindu-Dying, intestate-Property of-Rules of succession-C

Female Hindu inherited property from her nwther-On her death pmperty

mutated

in the name of her sister-Such female Hindu's husband's brother.filed

a suit claiming that property devolved on him by virtue

qf S.15(l)(b)-Trial

court decreed the suit, which was affirmed by High Court-Correctness qf­

Held: {fa .female Hindu inherits a property .from her father or mother, in the D

absence qf a('y son or daughter qf the deceased inchuling the children of any

pre-deceased son or

daughte1; it would devolve upon the heirs

qf her father

under S.15(2)(a) and not under S.JS(l)(b)-Therefore,

sister, being the only legal heir qf the father, the pmperty rightly mutated in her name-Hence, High

Court's order set aside.

Words and Phrases:

"Any property inherited from a female Hindu"-Meaning of-Jn the

context

of S.15(2)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The suit

property was inherited equally hy S and I, the daughters of

the original owner. After the death of S her share of the property was

mutated in the name of her surviving sister I. The appellant

who had

entered into an agreement with I, after the death

ot S, filed a snit for

specific' performance, which

was decreed in his favour.

The respondent, who was the brother of the pre-deceased husband of S, filed a snit alleging that, on the death of S her share of the suit property

devolved on him

by virtue of Section IS(l)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. The

trial court decreed the suit, which was affirmed by the first

143

E

F

G

H

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A appellate court. The appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the High

Court. Hence this appeal.

B

c

D

E

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that when S acquired

the property from her mother she had only a limited right over this

property and by virtue of S.14(1) of the Act she became full owner of her

property and, therefore, her property would

he inherited by her legal

heirs as

per Section 15(l)(b) of the Act; and the words

"any property"

inherited by a female Hindu" occurring in Section 15(2)(a) of the Act are

to be construed as property inherited by a female Hindu after the com­

mencement of the Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

•

HELD : 1. Admittedly, S inherited the property in question from her

mother.

If the property held by a female was inherited from her father or

mother,

in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, including

the children of any pre-deceased son

or daughter, it would only devolve

upon the heirs of the father and, in this case, her sister I

was the only legal

heir of her father.

It is not necessary that such inheritance should have

been after the commencement of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956. The

intent of the Legislature

is clear that the property, if originally belonged to

the parents of the deceased female, should go to the legal heirs of the

father.

So also under section 15(2)(b), the property inherited by a female

Hindu from her husband

or her father-in-law, shall also under similar

circumstances, devolve upon the heirs of the husband.

It is the source from

which the property

was inherited by the female, which is more important

F for the purpose of devolution of her property. The fact that a female

Hindu originally had a limited right and later, acquired the full right, in

any

way, would not alter the rules of succession given in Section 15(2) of

the

Act. [149-D-E-F-G]

G Bajya v.

Smt. Gopikabai, AIR (1978) SC 793, relied on.

State ~f Punjab v. Ba/want Singh and Chand Singh v. Ba/want Singh,

AIR (1991) SC 2301 and Bhagat Ram (Dead) v. Teja Singh, .[1999] 4 SCC

86, referred to.

H

2. Even if the female Hindu who is having a limited ownership

BHAGAT RAM v. TEJA SINGH [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 145

becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, the rules, of A

succession given under Section 15(2) can be applied. [150-D]

Smt. Amar Kaur v. Smr. Raman Kumari, AIR (1985) P & H 86, over­

ruled.

3. The source from which the female Hindu inherits the property is

always important and that would govern the situation. Otherwise persons

who are not even remotely related to the person who originally held the

property would acquire rights to inherit that property.

That would defeat

the intent and purpose of

Section 15(2), which gives a special pattern of

succession. [150-H; 151-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. I.

IN

Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5. 10.83 of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court in C.R.S.A. No. 1552 of 1971.

Rakesh Dwivedi and Jaspal Singh, Ms. S. Janani, Vipin Gogia, Ms.

Jaspreet Gogia and Rajiv Mehta for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was "delivered by

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. I.A. No. I is allowed.

This appeal was finally heard and allowed on 31.3.1999 by a Bench

consisting of one of us (Hon. U.C. Banerjee, J.) and another learned Judge of

this Court. That decision is reported in [1999] 4 SCC 86=AIR (1999) SC

1944=1999 237 !TR 364 [Bhagar Ram(Dead) v. Teja Singh].

The only respondent in the appeal was Teja Singh. He was served with

the notice issued from this Court but he did not choose to appear and defend

the appeal. Teja Singh died on 1.12.1986. But no steps were taken to implead

B

c

D

E

F

G

the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The original appellant Bhagat Ram also died and H

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A his legal heirs/representatives were brought on record on 20.11.1985. When

the appeal was heard

by this

Court on 31.3.1999, it was not brought to the

notice

of this

Court that Teja Singh had already passed away on 1.12.1986.

After the appeal

was disposed of, the legal heirs

of_ Teja Singh filed an

application to get themselves impleaded in this appeal for an opportunity

B of hearing.

c

D

This Court, however, thought it expedient. to offer an opportunity of

hearing by reason of the factum of the original respondent being not heard

at the time

of the disposal of the appeal and it is on this score that we

permitted Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the newly

added respondents

to put forth the submissions and address arguments before

this

Court. W.e did also allow Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned senior

counsel appearing in support

of the appeal to address the

Court. After hearing

both sides,.

we, however,

find that there is no reason to take a different view

as reflected iii' the earlier Order of this Court dated 31st March, 1999.

The short facts necessary for proper understanding of the case are thus:·

One Kehar Singh was the owner of the land admeasuring 280 kanals and

18 marlas in the village Antowali (now in Pakistan). He died prior to partition

E

of India. His widow, Smt. Kirpo and two daughters Smt.

Santi and Smt. lndro, .

migrated to India.

In lieu of the property owned by Kehar

Singh in Pakistan,

bis widow, Kirpo was allotted some land in India. Kirpo died on 25.12.1951

lfuing behind her two daughters Smt. Santi and Smt. Indra. They inherited

the property equally. Smt. Santi died in 1960. The property left by her was

F

thereafter mutated in the name of her surviving sister, Smt. Indra. The original

appellant, Bhagat Ram (deceased)

who had entered into an agreement with Smt. Indro on 12.3.1963, filed a suit for specific performance, which was

decreed in

his favour. The original respondent in the appeal,

Shri Teja Singh

(deceased)

is the brother of Smt. Santi's pre-deceased husband. He filed a suit

alleging that, on the death

of Smt. Santi in

1960, the property in question

G devolved on him by virtue of clause (b) of Sub-section (I) of Section 15 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Teja

Singh. The appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed. Bhagat Ram

(deceased) then preferred the second appeal before the High Cour~ which was

also dismissed. The High Court held that the property held by Smt. Santi on

H her death devolved on Teja Singh who was the brother of the pre-deceased

BHAGAT RAM v. TEJA SINGH [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 147

husband of Smt. Santi. However, on appeal, this Court by its Judgment dated A

31.3.1999 held that the property held by Smt. Santi was the property inherited

by her from her mother; therefore, clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 15

is the relevant provision which governed the succession and Teja Singh had no

right

in the property left by Smt. Santi and that it would only devolve on her

sister Smt. Indro.

The relevant Section in the Hindu Succesion Act, 1956 reads as follows:-

"15. General rules f!f succession in the case of.female Hindus.­

(!) The property of a female hindu dying intestate shall devolve

according to the rules set out in Section

16, -

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children

of

any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs

of the husband

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father,

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs

of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs

of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1),

-

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father

B

c

D

E

or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or F

daughter

of the deceased (including the children of any pre­

deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred

to in sub-Section ( 1) in the order specified therein but upon

the heirs

of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband

or from her father-in-law shall devolve,

in the absence of

any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children

of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other

heirs referred to in sub-section (I), in the order specified

therein, but upon the heirs

of the husband.

1

G

H

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The learned senior Counsel for the respondents Mr. Jaspal Singh con-

tended that

Smt. Santi acquired property from her mother Smt. Kirpo who died

on 25.12.1951 and

at that time Smt. Santi had only a limited right over this

property, but by virtue

of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, she

became the

full owner of the property and, therefore, on her death, the properly

B held by her would be inherited by her legal heirs

as per the rule set out in

Section 15(1) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that

prior to the Hindu Succession Act, Smt. Santi had only a limited right, but for

Section 14(1)

of the Act, it would have reverted to the reversioners and such

a limited right became a

full right and, therefore, the property is to be treated

c

as her own property. He also contended that Section 15 of the Hindu Succes­

sion Act will have only prospective operation and, therefore, the words used

in Section l5(2)(a) viz. "any property inherited by a female Hindu" are to be

construed

as property inherited by a female Hindu after the commencement of

the Act.

D We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the Counsel for the

respondents. Admittedly, Smt. Santi inherited the property

in question from her

mother.

If the property held by a female was inherited from her father or

mother,

in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, including the

children

of any pre-deceased son or daughter, it would only devolve upon the

E heirs

of the father and, in this case, her sister

Smt. Indro was the only legal heir

of her father. Deceased Smt. Santi admittedly inherited the property in question

from her mother.

It is not necessary that such inheritance should have been

after the commencement

of the Act. The intent of the Legislature is clear that

the property, if originally belonged to the parents

of the deceased female,

F should go

to the legal heirs of the father.

So also under clause (b) of sub­

Section 2 of Section 15, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her

husband or her father-in-law, shall also under similar circumstances, devolve

upon the heirs

of the husband. It is the source from which the property was

G

'

inherited by the female, which is more important for the purpose of devolution

of her property. We do not think that the fact that a female Hindu originally

had a limited right and later, acquired the

full right, in any way, would alter

the rules

of succession given in sub-section 2 of

Section 15.

. .

A question of similar nature was considered by this Court in Bajya v.

Smt. Gopikabai and Anr., AIR (1978) SC 793. In that case, the suit land

H originally belonged to G, son of D. G died before the settlement of 1918 and

..

BHAGAT RAM v. TEJA SINGH [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 149

thereafter, his land was held by his son, P who died in the year 1936. On P's A

death, the holding devolved on P's widow, S. S died on November 6, 1956, and

thereupon dispute about the inheritance to the land left behind by S arose

between the parties. The plaintiff claimed that she being the daughter of T, a

sister

of the last male holder,

P was an heir under Section 15 read with Section

2(11)(4)(iv)

of the Schedule referred to in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession B

Act, 1956, whereas the defendants claimed as 'sapindas' of the last male

holder under Mitakshara

Law. Speaking for the Bench, Hon. R.S. Sarkaria, J.

held that the case would fall under clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 15

because S died issueless and intestate and the interest in the suit property was

inherited by her from her husband and the property would go to the heirs

of

the husband.

In

State of Punjab v. Ba/want Singh and Others and Chand Singh and

c

Ors. v. Ba/want Singh and Anr.. AIR (1991) SC 2301 also, a question of

similar nature was considered. In that case, the female Hindu inherited the

property from her husband prior to Hindu Succession Act and she died after D

the Act. On being informed that there was no heir entitled to succeed to her

property, the Revenue authorities effected mutation in favour

of the State.

There was no heir from her husband's side entitled to succeed to the property. Plaintiff, who was the grandson of the brother of the female Hindu claimed

right over the property

of the deceased. The High Court held that the property E

inherited by female Hindu from her husband became her absolute property in

view

of Section 14 and the property would devolve upon the heirs specified

under Section 15(1). The above view was held

to be faulty and this Court did

not accept that. It was held that it

is important to remember that female Hindu

being the full owner

of the property becomes a fresh stock of descent. If she F

leaves behind any heir either under sub-section

(I) or under sub-section (2) of

Section 15, her property cannot be escheated.

In Smt. Amar Kaur

v. Smt. Raman Kumari and

Ors., AIR (1985) Punjab

and Haryana, 86, a contra view was taken by High Court of Punjab and

Haryana.

In this case, a widow inherited property from her husband in 1956.

She had two daughters and the widow gifted the entire property in favour

of

G

her two daughters.

One of the daughters named Shankri died without leaving

husband or descendent in 1972. Her property was mutated in favour

of her

other sister. At the time

of death

o( Shankri, her husband had already died

leaving behind another wife and a son. They claimed right over the property

H

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A left by the deceased female Hindu. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it was

held

as under:

B

c

"Smt. Shankari succeeded to life estate, which stood enlarged in her

full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Act. Since smaller estate

merged into larger one, the lesser estate ceases

to exist and a new

estate

of full ownership by fiction of law came to be held for the first

time

by

Smt. Shankari. The estate, which she held under Section

14( 1) of the Act, cannot be considered to be by virtue of inheritance

from her mother or father.

In law it would be deemed that she

beceme

full owner of this property by virtue of the Act. On these facts it is

to be seen whether Section 15(1) of the Act will apply or Section

15(2) of the Act will apply. Section 15(2) of the Act will apply only

when inheritance

is to the estate left by father or mother, in the

absence

of which

Section 15(1) of the Act would apply."

D We ,!u not think that the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in

the above said decision

is correct. Even if the female Hindu who is having

a limited ownership becomes full owner

by virtue of

Section 14(1) of the Act,

the rules

of succession given under sub-Section 2 of

Section 15 can be

applied.

In fact, the Hindu Succession Bill 1954 as originally introduced in

E the Rajya

Sabha did not contain any clause corresponding to sub-Section (2)

of Section 15. It came to be incorporated on the recommendations of the Joint

Committee

of the two Houses of Parliament. The reason given by the Joint

Committee

is found in Clause J 7 of the Bill, which reads

as follows:

F

G

"While revising the order of succession among the heirs to a

Hindu female, the Joint Committee have provided that, properties

inherited

by her from her father reverts to the family of the father in

the absence of issue and similarly property inherited from her hus­

band or father-in-law reverts to the heirs of the husband in the absence

of issue. In the opinion of the Joint Committee such a provision

would prevent properties passing into the hands

of persons to whom

justice would demand they should not

pass."

The source from which she inherits the property is always important

and that would govern the situation. Otherwise persons who are not even

H remotely related to the person who originally held the property would acquire

•

-

-

BHAGAT RAM v. TEJA SINGH [BALAKRISHNAN, J] 151

rights to inherit that property. That would defeat the intent and purpose of sub-A

Section 2 of Section 15, which gives a special pattern of succession.

This Court in its Judgment dated

31.3.1999 held that clause (a) of sub­

section

(2) of

Section 15 is the appropriate rule to be applied for succession

of the property left by the deceased Smt. Santi and we find no reasons to

take a different view. Thus, the appeal

is allowed.

Parties to bear their

respective costs. Revised decree be drafted showing the newly added re­

spondents on the party array.

V.S.S.· Appeal allowed.

B