PROJECT WORK

OF

FAMILY LAW- II

ON

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS OF BHAGAT RAM V. TEJA SINGH

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

MOHAN KUMAR PAL(GU15R0144) Prof. SADAF ALI KHAN

SEMESTER-VII (Assistant professor of Law)

GLOCAL LAW SCHOOL

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 THE RELEVANT SECTION IN THE HINDU SUCCESION ACT, 1956
 ISSUES FRAMED
 CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS
 JUDGEMENT
 ANALYSIS
 SECTION 14
 SECTION 15
 HUSBAND
 HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND
 MOTHER AND FATHER
 HEIRS OF FATHER
 HEIRS OF MOTHER

2|Page
FACTS OF THE CASE

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 of India. His widow, Smt. Kirpo
and two daughters Smt. Santi and Smt. Indro 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.
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 dismissed.
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.

THE RELEVANT SECTION IN THE HINDU SUCCESION ACT, 1956 reads as follows:-
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.

3|Page
 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.

ISSUES
What happens when women dies 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 or not?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS

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 h0eld 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.
The Counsel of the Appellant contented that 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 heirs of the father and, in this case, her sister
4|Page
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, 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.

JUDGEMENT
A question of similar nature was considered by this Court in Bajya vs. Smt. Gopikabai and
another AIR 1978 SC 793. In that 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 Ps death, the holding devolved on Ps 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(II)(4)(iv) of 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. 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.
In State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and others and Chand Singh and others vs. Balwant Singh
and another 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 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 husbands 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 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
5|Page
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.
In Smt. Amar Kaur vs. Smt. Raman Kumari and others 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. 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 of Shankri, her husband had already died leaving behind another wife and
a son. They claimed right over the property 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 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.
We do 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 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 Shankri, her husband had already died leaving behind another wife
and a son. They claimed right over the property 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 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
6|Page
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.
We do 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 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 17 of the Bill, which reads as
follows:
While revising the order of succession among the heirs to a 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 husband 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 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 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 sub-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 take a different view. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their
respective costs. Revised decree be drafted showing the newly added respondents on the party
array.

ANALYSIS
SECTION 14
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 opens a new era for female’s in the matter of
their property rights. It abolishes the concept of limited ownership to females and introduces
absolute ownership of property rights to females. If we analyse the position of the female’s
7|Page
property right before coming into force of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, it gives us clear
picture that at every stage property right were given to women whether they are unmarried,
married or widow. But these property rights are given to them only to a limited extent. They
are not free to deal with these rights as absolute owners, rather restriction has been imposed on
their power of disposal i.e. limited ownership rights are given to those females. Even if we
analyse the position of stridhan i.e. which is purely the ‘dhan’ of ‘stri’ females have limited
power to dispose of her stridhan. Stridhan comprised, generally speaking, property received by
ways of gifts and presents given to a women by her parents, husband, close relations of parents
or husband, either at the time of marriage or on other occasions, or at the time of the
performance of ceremonies, of ‘sulka’ or bride price, of property acquired by her own exertions
and ability or by adverse possession of bequests from stranger or relations, of money or
property given to her in lieu of maintenance or its arrears, and of savings or purchases made
with stridhan.
Non-stridhan comprised what she inherited from a male or a female relation. There was a
further divergence within this category of stridhan, into ‘saudayika’ and ‘non-saudayika’, as
regard the power of a woman to alienate it. Saudayika, that included gifts, presents or property
received by way of bequests from parents and other relations, conferred on her an absolute
power of alienation, irrespective of her marital status. But over the non-saudayika, that included
property received from nonrelations, her power of alienation were curtailed after marriage, as
the husband’s consent was necessary before she could part with it by way of a transfer. Non-
stridhan property included the one that was inherited by her from a male or a female relation,
including the husband, or property received at the time of partition. She was called a limited
owner of this property. The limitation was with respect to the power over its disposal and the
inability to transmit this estate to her own heirs, but otherwise she had full powers to enjoy it
and appropriate the income coming out of it. It was the power to transfer it that was denied to
her. Except in the case of need, or for the performance of indispensable religious and charitable
purposes, including for according spiritual benefits to her husband, she could not transfer it.
During her lifetime , no person had any vested right of succession in it, as her restricted powers
of alienation were not for the benefit of the heirs of her husband, but were the essential feature
of the estate that she took. The heirs of the husband had no powers to dispose it off till she was
alive. Regarding succession to stridhan property female constitute independent stock of
descent.
SECTION 15

8|Page
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act deals with the disposition of female’s property. As
now by virtue of section 14 whereby female becomes absolute owner of the property, she
constitutes independent stock of descent. Section 15 deals with succession to the property of a
female Hindu. Before the commencement of this Act the law of succession to a female was
very complicated. Her property was0 classified on the several grounds for this purpose. These
grounds were:
1) The school by which she was governed.—there was difference between the Mitakshara
and the Dayabhaga. Even in Mitakshara there were three sub-schools,
a. the Banaras and Madras,
b. the Mithila
c. the Mayukha.
2) Her marital status—there were different rules for the succession to married woman and
to an unmarried woman. This distinction is quite natural because after marriage many
of heirs comes into existence who cannot be even thought of without marriage e.g., the
husband, the legitimate children and under the old law also the adopted son, etc.
3) Again her property was divided into stridhan and non-stridhan over stridhan with some
restrictions, she had full fledge rights as it was her absolute estate but regarding non-
stridhan she had limited rights and for this property, she could not constitute fresh stock
of descent. Similarly rules of succession to these kinds of property are also different
depending upon the source from where the property comes.
The two statutes that were enacted to improve her condition of life, i.e., the Hindu Law of
Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929, and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937,
concentrated on securing her rights, rather than on focusing on who, after her, will be eligible
to take her property. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, also retains two separate scheme of
succession for men’s and women’s property. The scheme of the succession for the heirs of
women gives great importance to the source from which the woman had acquired her property.
The preferential heirs under this scheme are a Hindu woman’s husband and children. In cases
of women not survived by husband and children, the property inherited from her mother and
father would go to the heirs of the father. If the property inherited from the husband or father-
in-law, it would devolve on the heirs of the husband. Significantly, the Act does not provide
for the transmission of property acquired by the woman herself. It is assumed that she is
unlikely to acquire property and whatever she holds should go back to the rightful owners,
namely, the family. In this sense, women are not seen as rightful owners of property.

9|Page
The expression “property” in section 15 refers to the property in which a Hindu woman is
entitled to an absolute ownership on the date of the commencement of the Act. It means and
includes movable and immovable acquired by the Hindu female in any manner whatsoever by
the operation of law under section 14, by inheritance, by devise, by gift, by partition, etc and
which is heritable on her dying intestate. If the Hindu woman had only limited or restricted
interest in the property at the time of her death after the commencement of this Act, the line of
succession will be governed by the traditional Hindu law or in accordance with the terms of
the deed under which she had acquired the property.
The term general property refers to the property of a woman other than that which was inherited
by her from her parents, husband or her father-in-law. The term used is ‘inherited’ and general
property’ will include the property that she might have received from these relations through
any other device, such as a gift, will or settlement, or even trough a transfer for consideration.
It will also cover properties that were herself-acquisitions or were received from any other
source whatsoever, including a gift received from a friend or a relative, or property inherited
from other relation. Property that a woman inherits from her brother, in the capacity of his sister
or from her husband’s brother as his brother’s widow, would be her general property and would
go under section 15(1).
HUSBAND: The expression “husband” means a person who was the lawfully wedded husband
at the time of the death of the Hindu female. The expression does not include a divorced
husband or the husband of a void marriage or annulled voidable marriage. But a deserted
husband who is living separately under any agreement or decree of a Court will be entitled to
inherit as he does not cease to be the husband. Even a husband who has converted himself to
another religion or is leading a life of immorality is not disqualified.
HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND: In the absence of the heirs specified in subclause (a) and not
until then, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate will devolve upon the heirs of the
husband under this Entry. However, the property inherited by her from her father or mother,
will not devolve upon them, but will devolve only upon the heirs of the father [section 15(2)(a)].
The order of the devolution will be according to the rules as would have applied if the property
had belonged to the husband and he had died intestate immediately after the death of the female
Hindu, which is governed as per the rules of succession laid down in section 8. Where a female
intestate had remarried after the death of her first husband, the expression “heirs of the
husband” would be the heirs of the second husband. The heirs of the husband are to be
ascertained not on the date of the husband’s death, but as on the date of the death of the female
Hindu as if he died immediately after her death.
10 | P a g e
MOTHER AND FATHER: Failing all heirs in the previous two Entries, the heirs in the Entry
(c) will inherit. The expression “mother” and “father” include natural as well as adoptive
mother and father. The expressions in this Entry will not however include stepmother and
stepfather. Where the marriage between the father and mother is void or is nullified, they will
be entitled to inherit her by virtue of section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act
1976. The mother of an illegitimate daughter is entitled to succeed as her heir under this clause
in view of section 3(1) (j) of this Act, but her putative father would not. The remarriage of the
mother does not disentitle her from inheritance, or is unchastity aground to debar her from
inheriting her daughter. The father and the mother are clubbed together in this Entry under
section 15. It is not known why the mother and the father were disjoined in the matter of
inheritance to a male Hindu by placing the mother in Class 1 and the father in Class II of the
schedule.
HEIRS OF FATHER: In the absence of any heir in the previous three Entries, this Entry will
come into force. The devolution of property on the heirs of the father will be governed by the
provisions of sections 8 to 13 of the Hindu Succession Act as if the father died immediately
after the death of the daughter. Where a Hindu female dies without leaving any other heir
except the stepmother, she will inherit as heir to her father she being Class 1 heir of her husband
i.e., father of the propositus.
HEIRS OF MOTHER: In the absence of any heirs in any of the above four Entries, this Entry
will come into the play. The heirs of the mother will be determined on the application of section
15 read with section 16. The heirship to the mother will have to be determined with reference
to the date on which the intestate died as if she (the mother) died immediately after her
daughter’s death, by means of a legal fiction. As the heirs of the mother, the deceased’s brother
and sister by the uterine blood as well as an illegitimate brother or an illegitimate sister can
succeed to the property of the female intestate. The proviso to section 3(1)(j) lays down that
illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother and to one another and their
legitimate descendants shall be deemed to be related to them and to one another.

11 | P a g e