Holding

Property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother devolves under Section 15(2)(a) to the heirs of the father, so the sister Indra is the rightful heir, not Teja Singh.

Summary

The case concerned a piece of land originally allotted to the widow Kirpo, which was inherited by her daughters Santi and Indra. After Santi's death, the property was mutated in Indra's name. Bhagat Ram had entered into an agreement with Indra and sued for specific performance, obtaining a decree in his favour. Teja Singh, brother of Santi's pre‑deceased husband, claimed that the property devolved to him under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, arguing that Santi had become a full owner under Section 14(1). The trial court, appellate court and High Court upheld his claim. The Supreme Court held that because the property was inherited by Santi from her mother, Section 15(2)(a) applies, directing succession to the heirs of the father – in this case Indra – irrespective of when the inheritance occurred or the later acquisition of full ownership. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the lower courts' orders set aside.

Issues considered

Whether property inherited by a female Hindu from her parents devolves under Section 15(2)(a) to the heirs of the father, even if she later becomes a full owner under Section 14(1).
Whether Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act has prospective only operation, limiting its application to inheritances after the Act's commencement.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1), s. 15(1), s. 15(2)(a), s. 15(2)(b)

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 15(2)female inheritanceheirs of fatherproperty mutationlimited right to full ownershipretrospective applicationspecific performance

Judgment

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. E
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.
F
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. G

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
H
143
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.

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
B
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.
c
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
D
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
E 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.
B
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] c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. I.

IN
D
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.
E
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

F
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]. G

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
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.

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
c 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.
D
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
thereafter mutated in the name of her surviving sister, Smt. Indra. The original
F
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.
B
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, - c
(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 D
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father,

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. E

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

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

1
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
as her own property. He also contended that Section 15 of the Hindu Succes-
c 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
'
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
G
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.
c
In State of Punjab v. Ba/want Singh and Others and Chand Singh and
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. G
She had two daughters and the widow gifted the entire property in favour of
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:

"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
B
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
c 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 J7 of the Bill, which reads as follows:

"While revising the order of succession among the heirs to a
F 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
G 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
B
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.

-
-