Holding

Section 15(2) applies, so the property devolves to the sister Indro rather than to the heirs of the pre‑deceased husband.

Summary

Kehar Singh's widow Kirpo inherited land in Pakistan and, after partition, was allotted suit land in India. Upon Kirpo's death, her daughters Santi and Indro possessed the land, which later fell under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After Santi's death, Indro obtained mutation of the entire land and sold it to the appellant; a dispute arose when Indro attempted to retract the sale. Teja Singh, brother of Santi's pre‑deceased husband, claimed possession of Santi's share under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, asserting rights as an heir of the husband. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 15(1) or the carve‑out in Section 15(2) applied, concluding that because the property was inherited by the sisters from their mother, Section 15(2) governed and the land devolved to Indro, not to the husband's heirs. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and awarded costs to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether Section 15(1) or Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to property inherited by a female Hindu from her mother.
Whether, on the death of Santi, the property devolves to the heirs of her pre‑deceased husband or to her sister Indro.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 15(1), s. 15(2), s. 16

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 15intestate successionfemale inheritanceheirs of husbandproperty lawmutationspecific performance

Judgment

A BHAGAT RAM (DEAD)
v.
TEJA SINGH

MARCH 31, 1999

B [A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.]

Hindu succession Act, 1956 :

Sections 15 (1) and 15 (2) - Applicability of
c 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 ofhalf 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
estate as owner. She had two daughters Santi and Indro who came to India.
A

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
c
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
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.
E
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 :-

" 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 ;
G
(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. H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 2 S.C.R.

,A (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

,.