BHAGAT RAM v.

TEJA SINGH

FACTS OF THE CASE

Kehar Singh was the owner of the land admeasuring 280 kanals and 18 marlas in the
village Antowali (now in Pakistan). He passed away prior to partition of India. His
widow, Smt. Kirpo and two daughters Smt. Santi and Smt. Indro as a result of the
partition migrated to India. In lieu of the property owned by Kehar Singh in Pakistan, his
widow, Kirpo was allotted some land in India. Kirpo died on 25.12.1951 leaving behind
her two daughters Smt. Santi and Smt. Indro. They inherited the property equally. One of
the daughter, Smt. Santi died in 1960. The property left by her was thereafter mutated in
the name of her surviving sister, Smt. Indro. 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. Santis pre-deceased husband.
He filed a suit alleging that, on the death of Smt. Santi in 1960, the property in question
devolved on him by virtue of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) 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 Court, which was also dism0issed. The High Court held
that the property held by Smt. Santi on her death devolved on Teja Singh who was the
brother of the pre-deceased husband of Smt. Santi. However, on appeal, this Court by its
Judgment dated 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.
LAW INVOLVED

SECTION 15 - HINDU SUCESSION ACT, 1956

The relevant Section. 15 of the Hindu Succesion Act, 1956 reads as follows:-

15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. -- (1) 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 or mother 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 (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 (1), in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.

SECTION 14(1) – HINDU SUCESSION ACT, 1956

(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited
owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and
immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a
partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person,
whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion,
or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such
property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned senior Counsel for the respondents Mr. Jaspal Singh contended 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 property 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 Succession Act will have only prospective operation and,
therefore, the words used in Section 15(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.
DECISION OF THE COURT

The Hon’ble judges did 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 predeceased son or
daughter, it would only devolve upon the heirs of the father and, in this case, her sister
Smt Indro was the only legal heir of her father. The 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, 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 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.

Thus the Court in its judgment 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 it find no reasons to take a different view.

CASES REFFERED

A question of similar nature was considered in,

In this case, the suit land originally belonged to G, son of D. G died before the settlement
of 1918 and thereafter, his land was held by his son, P who died in the year 1936. On P‘s
death, the holding devolved on P‘s widow, S. S died on 6-11-1956, 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 the Schedule referred to in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, whereas the defendants claimed as ―sapindas‖ of the last male holder under
Mitakshara law. Speaking for the Bench, Hon‘ble 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.

STATE OF PUNJAB V. BALWANT SINGH [AIR 1991 SC 2301]

In this case, the female Hindu inherited the property from her husband prior to the Hindu
Succession Act and she died after 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. The 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 inherited
by the 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 leaves behind any heir either under sub-section (1) or under
sub-section (2) of Section 15, her property cannot be escheated.

AMAR KAUR V. RAMAN KUMARI [AIR 1985 P & H 86]

A contra-view was taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

―… 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 became 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.