MST. MOHINDEROversusKARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

          \



                            MST. MOHINDERO                                          A
                                   v.
                         KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 30, 1990

              [KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL JJ.)                                   B

          Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 15(1)(a)-Succession to
    estate of Hindu widow-Daughter of the· deceased son-Preferential
    heir-Entitled to succession.

          Santi married Kisso and gave birth to a son, the father of the            c
    appellant. On the death of Kisso, Santi married his brother, Ditto, who
    died issueless.

          On the death of Ditto, the mutation of his estate was sanctioned in
    Santi's name, being his widow. She was in possession of the same as
    life-Estate holder. She executed a gift-deed in favour of her grand             D
    daughter, the appellant on December 27, 1955 and she died on October
    6, 1956, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.

          Kissi, the sister of Santi's husbands f"ded a suit for possession
    contending that she was a preferential heir of the suit property, and
    that the property had been illegally mutated in the name of the                 E
    appellant.

          The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that without c!Jalleng·
    Ing the gift deed, the suit for possession was not competent.   ·

         Meanwhile Kissi, the plaintiff, having died, her heirs the respoll·        F
    dents preferred an appeiil before the District Judge. An application to
    amend the plaint, so as to challenge the validity of the gift was also filed.
    The District Judge allowed the application and the appeal, and
    remanded the case for fresh trial.

          Holding the gift to be invalid, the Trial Court dismissed the suit        G
    on the ground of limitation, which was affirmed by the District Judge,
    in appeal.

          The Respondents' Second Appeal to the High Court, was allowed
    by a Single Judge who reversed the fmdings of the Courts below on the
-   issue oflimitation.                                                             H

                                        475
     476           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

          The Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment was
A
     dismissed.
           The appellant in this Court has contended that the gill be-
     ing invalid, Santi, the grandmother of the appellant continued to be
     a limited owner till the date of the commencement of the Hindu
     Succession Act, 1956, and thereafter by virtne of the provisions of the
B    Act, she became full owner of the suit-property and the appellant being
     the daughter of a predeceased son of Santi was the preferential h~ir
     under section lS(l)(a) of the Act and was entitled to succeed to the
     property. The respondents contended the appeal contending that unless
     it was factually proved that appellant's father was the son of Santi, the
     appellant could not get the benefit of section 15 of the Act.
c            Allowing the appeal, this Court.
            HELD; 1. The appellant being daughter of a predeceased son was
     entitled to succeed to the property of Santi in preference to the res-
     pondents-plaintiffs. [479D]
D                 ' held the property as limited owner till the coming into
             2. Santi
     force of the Act. She became full owner thereafter. When she died on
     October 6, 1956 succession to her property was to be governed by the
     Act. Santi having died intestate, succession to her property was to be
     governed hy Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act. Appellant being      •
     the daughter of a predeceased son of Santi she bad the first preference to
E    su~ceed under Section lS(l)(a) oftbe Act. [479B-C]

           This Court found sufficient material on the record to prove that
     the appellant's father was the son of Santi. [479B]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON: Civil Appeal No. 790 of
     1981.
F
          From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.1980 of the Punjab &
     Haryana High Court in Review Application No. 52 of 1980.

             M. R. Sharma and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.

G            R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          KULDIP SINGH, J. Kissi was the sister of two brothers named             -
     Kisso and Ditto. Santi married these two brothers one after the other.
'H   She first married Kisso from whom she gave birth to a son named
          MOHINDERO v. KARTAR SINGH IKULDIP SINGH, J.]               477

Buta. After the death of Kisso she remarried the other brother Ditto.
Ditto also died issueless. Buta who was born out of the wedlock of
                                                                            A
Kisso and Santi also died leaving a daughter named Mohindero.

      On the death of Ditto the mutation of his estate was sanctioned
in the name of the Santi being his widow. She was, thus, in possession
of the land-holding of Ditto as a life-estate. Santi executed a gift-deed   B
dated December 27, 1955, of the said land, in favour of Mohindero
daughter of her son Buta. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (herein-
after called 'the Act') came into force with effect from June 17, 1956.
Santi died on October 6, 1956.

       Kissi filed a suit for possession on the ground that under the law
she was a preferential heir and the suit property had been illegally        c
mutated in the name of Mohindero. The suit was di5missed by the trial
court on May 27, 1963. It was held that without challenging the gift in
favour of Mohindero, the suit fat possession was not ·competent.
Meanwhile Kissi died and her heirs went-up in appeal before the Dis,
trict Judge. An application for permission to amend the plaint, so as to    D
challenge the validity of the gift, was also filed before the District
Judge. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was
set aside. The District Judge also allowed amendment of the plaint and
remanded the case for fresh trial. While holding the gift to be invalid,
the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of Limitation. The
District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of      E
limitation and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed
Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. A Learned Single
Judge of the High Court reversed the findings of the Courts below on
the issue of Limitation, set aside the judgment and decree of the
Lower Courts and decreed the suit. The Letters Patent Appeal against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Divi-         F
sion Bench of the High Court on May 6, 1980. This appeal by the
defendant Mohindero via special leave petition is against the judgment
of the High Court.

       Mr. M.R. Sharma, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
 appellant has not challenged before us the correctness of the findings     G
 reached by the High Court. He proceeds on the assumption that the
 suit was within Limitation and the gift in favour of Mohindero was
 invalid. He, however, contends that on October 6, 1956 when Santi
 died she had become absolute owner of the property and Mohindero
 being the daughter of a pre-deceased son was the preferential heir to
·Santi.                                                                     H
    478         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

          The Act came into force on June 17, 1956 and thereafter on
A   October 6, 1956 Santi died. If the gift in favour of Mohindero was .
    invalid as has been held by the High Court then Santi continued to be
    limited owner upto June 17, 1956 when the Act came into force and
    thereafter by virtue of the provisions of the said Act she became full
    owner of the property. Mr. Sharma contends that on October 6, 1956
B   when Santi died succession to her property was to be governed by
    Section 15 of the Act and the appellant Mohindero being daughter of a
    pre-deceased son of Santi was the preferential heir under Section
    15( !)(a) of the Act and was entitled to succeed to the property owned
    by Santi.

          Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
                                                                                  '
c   does not challenge the legal position as argued by Mr. Sharma but he
    contends that there is no material on the record to show that Santi gave
    birth to Bu ta. Mr. Sodhi contends that unless it is factually proved that
    Buta was the son of Santi the appellant Mohindero cannot get the
    benefit of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act We do not agree with
D   Mr. Sodhi. We find sufficient material on the record to show that Buta
    was born out of the wedlock of Kisso and. Santi. Written Statement
    dated December 20, 1963 filed by Mohindero is on the record of this
    appeal. Para 2 of the written statement is as under:

                "2. That, in reply to para no. 2 it is submitted that it is not
E               denied that Kissi is the sister of Ditto. After the death of
                Ditto the estate left by him was inherited by Mst. Santi (her
                widow) as full and absolute owner. The said Mst. Santi was
                previously the widow of Kisso and Bula Singh (father of
                Defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 3) was the
                son of Kisso through Mst. Santi. The resf of this para is
F               denied. It is incorrect that Mst. Santi has a limited estate."
                                                          (emphasis supplied)

          The gift deed dated December 27, 1955 which was admittedly
    part of the trial Court record and copy of which was placed before us
    recites as under:
G
                "I, Santi widow of late Sri Ditto r/o. village Ghasi Nangal,
                Nangal, Tehsil Batala, Dist!. Gurdaspur, Punjab whose
                thumb impression is marked below have no sons and
                daughters neither next to· kin because my only son Buta
                Singh had expired 8 years earlier. Bula Singh had nO sons
H               but he had one daughter named Mohindero w/o Sardar ·
             MOHINDERO v. KARTAR SINGH [KUWIP SINGH, J.]                 479


                Shangara Singh r/o village Tehhore Tehsil Batala Distt.         A
                Gurdaspur."
                                                   (emphasi&supplied)

         The above averments remained uncontroverted. Buta was,
    therefore; son of Santi born out of the wedlock of Kisso and Santi.         B
    There is no dispute that appellant Mohindero is the daughter of Buta.

          Santi held the property as limited owner till the coming into force
    of the Act. She became full owner thereafter. When she died on
    October 6, 1956 succession to her property was to be governed by the
    Act. Santi having died intestate, succession to her property was to be
    governed by Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act. Mohindero           C
    being daughter of a predeceased son of Santi she had the first prefe-
    rence to succeed under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. We, therefore,
    agree with the precise-point raised by Mr. Sharma.

          We accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High           D
    Court and dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. We hold
    that the appellant Mohindero was entitled to succeed to the property
    of Santi in preference to the respondents-plaintiffs. There shall be no
    order as to costs.

    V.P.R.                                                  Appeal allowed.




I