No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
A
B
c
BHAGAT RAM (DEAD)
v.
TEJA
SINGH
MARCH 31, 1999
[A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.]
Hindu succession Act, 1956 :
Sections 15 (1) and 15 (2) -Applicability of
Hindu female-Property inherited by her from mother or father-Intestate
succession to-Rule of succession-Held section 15(1) is not applicable-In
such a case property devolv~s under section 15(2)-K, a widow, succeeding
to property
of her husband as owner-K had two daughters
S & I-After K's
Death her two daughters in possession of suit land-Thereafter succession
D Act came into force-Death of Sin 1961-Mutation of entire land in favour
of I-Land sold by 1 to appellant-Retraction of sale agreement by !-Suit
for specific performance filed by appellant decreed by court-There after
brother
of
S's pre-deceased husband, T, filed a suit for possession of half land
which had fallen
to the share of
S-Claim based on section 15 (1) as heirs
E of husband-Held not maintainable-Held after death of S-Property
devolved not on the heirs of pre-deceased husband but on 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION-~ Civil Appeal No . 3663 of
1984.
F From the Judgment and Order dated 5 .10.83 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in
C.
R.S.A. No. 1552of1971.
V.C. Mahajan and Ms. S. Janani for the Appellant.
The following Order
of the Court was delivered :
G
In this case, the respondent has not appeared inspite of service.
Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.
The short facts are that one Kehar
Singh was the owner of the land
H admeasuring 280 kanals and 18 marlas situated in Village Antowali (now in
358
-
BHAGAT RAM (DEAD) v. TEJA SINGH 359
Pakistan). He died prior to the partition. His widow Kirpo succeeded to his A
estate as owner. She had two daughters Santi and Indro who came to India.
Smt. Kirpo, widow of Kehar Singh was allotted suit land in lieu of the land
left behind by her in Pakistan. In 1951 she died leaving behind two daughters
who remained in possession
of the suit land. Thereafter the Hindu
Succession
Act, 1956 came into force. Some time in 1961 one of the sister Santi died. In B
1963, mutation on the entire land was made in favour of Indro, the other sister.
On 2nd March, 1963, Indro entered into an agreement to sell of this land in
dispute, with the present appellant.
It seems that subsequently as Indro tried
to retract from the said agreement to sell, the present appellant had to file a
suit for specific performance which was decreed in appellant's favour.
This led to the filing
of the present suit by one Teja
Singh who is the
brother
of
Santi's pre-deceased husband. The suit was for possession of the
half share
of the suit land which had fallen to the share of
Santi. Teja Singh
based his claim on sub-section (1) of Section 15. He claimed to fall in the line
c
of succession under the second clause of this sub-section, namely, Section
15(1) (b)-'heirs of the husband'. This position is contested by the appellant. D
Appellant case is, sub-section (2) and not sub-section (1) of Section 15 will
apply, on the facts and circumstances
of this case. The trial court decreed the
suit holding that
Section 15(1) will apply. The appeal was also dismissed and
the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence the
present appeal by special leave.
The short question raised for our consideration is, whether on the facts
and circumstances of this case, sub-section ( 1) or sub-section (2)" of section
15 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 will apply. For ready reference, sgb-sections
(I) and (2) of Section 15 are quoted hereunder :-
E
" 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. -(1) The F
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)
anj 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.
G
H
360
,A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 2 S.C.R.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) any pro;Jerty inherited by a female Hindu from her father or
mother shall devolve, in the abs.ence 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)
B 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-
C 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.
On perusal of the two sub-sections we find that their spheres are very
clearly marked out. So far sub-section (1), it covers the properties of a female
D Hindu dying intestate. Sub-section (2) starts with the words 'Notwithstanding
anything contained
in sub-section ( 1)'. In other words, what falls within the
sphere
of sub-section (2), sub-section ( 1) will not apply. We find that
Section
15(2)(a) uses the words 'any property inherited by a female Hindu from her
father or mother'. Thus property inherited by a female Hindu from her father
E and mother is carved-out from a female Hindu dying intestate. In order words
any property
of female Hindu, if inherited by her from her father
·or mother
would not fall under sub-section
(1) of Section 15. Thus, property of a female
Hindu can be classified under two heads : Every property
of a female Hindu
dying intestate
is a general class by itself covering all the properties but sub
section (2) excludes out
of the aforesaid properties the property inherited by
F her from her father or mother.
In addition, we find the language used in Section 15(
I) read with
Section 16 makes it clearly, the class who has to succeed of property of Hindu
female dying intestate. Sub-section
(I) specifically state that the property of
G a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out
in
Section 16. So, in case sub-section (I) applies, then after the death of Santi,
Indro can not inheriteck by succession but it would go to the heirs of the
pre-deceased husband
of
Santi.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that both Indro and Santi
H inherited this property from their mother, hence inherited this property as a
--
,.
·BHAGAT RAM (DEAD) v. TEJA SINGH 361
female from her mother. Thus on the facts of this case succession clearly falls A
under sub-section (2). Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that on the facts
of this case, the property would devolve after death of Santi not on th.e heirs
of her pre-deceased husband but would devolve on Indro. This legal principle
has wrongly been decided by all the courts below including the High Court.
For the said reasons, we find merit in this appeal. We accordingly allow B
the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and also
of two courts below. Since none has appeared for the respondent, the appellant
to bear .his own costs.
T.NA Appeal allowed. C
The Supreme Court of India's judgment in Bhagat Ram (Dead) v. Teja Singh stands as a critical interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly clarifying the intricate succession rules for Hindu females. This landmark case, available for comprehensive review on CaseOn, resolves the apparent conflict between Section 15(1) and Section 15(2) of the Act, establishing a definitive precedent on how property inherited by a Hindu female from her parents devolves upon her death if she dies intestate and childless.
The dispute originated from a property owned by Kehar Singh, who passed away before the partition of India. His widow, Kirpo, succeeded to his estate. After the partition, Kirpo and her two daughters, Santi and Indro, moved to India, where Kirpo was allotted land in lieu of the property left behind in Pakistan. In 1951, Kirpo passed away, and her two daughters, Santi and Indro, jointly inherited this land.
The legal complexities began after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. In 1961, Santi died intestate (without a will) and without any children. Her husband had also predeceased her. Following her death, the entire property was recorded in the name of her surviving sister, Indro. Subsequently, Indro entered into an agreement to sell the land to Bhagat Ram, the appellant in this case.
This sale was challenged by Teja Singh, the brother of Santi’s deceased husband. He filed a suit claiming a half-share in the property, asserting that as an 'heir of the husband', he was entitled to inherit Santi's share under the general succession rules laid out in Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was to determine the correct rule of succession applicable to the property of Santi, a Hindu female who died intestate. Specifically:
When a Hindu female dies intestate and childless, does the property she inherited from her mother devolve upon the heirs of her husband as per Section 15(1), or does it revert to the heirs of her father/mother as per the exception carved out in Section 15(2)?
The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of Section 15, which outlines the rules of succession for a Hindu female's property.
This sub-section provides a general order of succession for all property of a female Hindu dying intestate:
This sub-section acts as an exception to the general rule in Section 15(1). It begins with the phrase, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),—” which gives it overriding power in specific situations. It states that:
Understanding complex legal differentiations like the one in Section 15 can be challenging. For legal professionals on the go, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs of landmark rulings, making it easier to grasp the core reasoning and implications of judgments like Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh without sifting through pages of text.
The lower courts, including the High Court, had incorrectly applied the general rule under Section 15(1) and ruled in favor of Teja Singh (the husband's brother). They failed to consider the source from which Santi had acquired the property.
The Supreme Court, however, adopted a source-based approach, which is the cornerstone of Section 15(2). The Court’s analysis was clear and methodical:
The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Section 15(2) is to ensure that property, if inherited by a female from her parental side, goes back to her parental family if she dies childless. Similarly, if she inherits property from her husband's side, it reverts to her husband's family. This prevents the property from passing to individuals who were strangers to the family from which the property originated.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. It held that the suit property, having been inherited by Santi from her mother, would devolve upon her sister, Indro, as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The claim of Teja Singh, the brother of Santi's pre-deceased husband, was found to be not maintainable as Section 15(1) was not applicable.
In essence, the Supreme Court clarified that for determining the line of succession for a Hindu female's property, the source of the property is paramount. The general rules of succession under Section 15(1) apply only to a female's self-acquired property or property received from sources other than her parents, husband, or father-in-law. For inherited properties, the specific exceptions under Section 15(2) must be applied.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is a simplified analysis of a legal judgment. For specific legal issues, it is imperative to consult with a qualified legal professional.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....