Supreme Court of IndiaBhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs vs Teja Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 6 November, 2001Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1, 2002 (1) SCC 210, 2001 AIR SCW 4507, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 233, (2002) 1 JCR 400 (SC), 2001 (8) SCALE 93, (2001) 10 JT 270 (SC), 2001 (10) JT 270, 2002 (1) MARR LJ 233, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 3643, (2001) 252 ITR 324, (2002) 1 CAL HN 77, (2002) 1 KER LJ 141, (2002) 3 LANDLR 593, (2002) 4 MAD LW 326, (2002) REVDEC 94, (2002) 1 RAJ LW 64, (2001) 5 SCJ 309, (2002) 167 TAXATION 141, (2001) 8 SUPREME 130, (2001) 8 SCALE 93, (2002) 1 UC 203, (2002) 46 ALL LR 672, (2002) 1 ALL WC 435, (2002) 1 BLJ 327, (2002) 1 CIVLJ 605, (2001) 3 RAJ LR 436Author:K.G. BalakrishnanBench:U.C. Banerjee,K.G. BalakrishnanCASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3663  of  1984



PETITIONER:
BHAGAT RAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
TEJA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	06/11/2001

BENCH:
U.C. Banerjee & K.G. Balakrishnan




JUDGMENT:K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.I.A. No. 1 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 ITR 364 [Bhagat Ram(Dead) Versus Teja
Singh].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 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 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 added respondents to put forth the submissions and address
arguments before this Court.   We 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 in the earlier Order of this
Court dated 31st March, 1999.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 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) ofSection 15of
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) ofSection 15is 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 relevantSection in the Hindu Succesion Act, 1956reads 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 inSection 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.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 ofSection 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 inSection 15 (1)of the Act.  The learned
Senior Counsel further contended that prior to theHindu Succession Act,
Smt. Santi had only a limited right, but forSection 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 thatSection 15of the Hindu Succession Act will have only
prospective operation and, therefore, the words used inSection 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.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 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 2ofSection
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 2of Section15.

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 underSection 15read withSection 2(II)(4)(iv)of the
Schedule referred to inSection 8of 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 2ofSection 15because 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.InState of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and othersand 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 toHindu
Succession Actand 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
ofSection 14and the property would devolve upon the heirs specified
underSection 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) ofSection 15, her property cannot be escheated.InSmt. Amar Kaur   vs.   Smt.	 Raman	Kumari	 and  othersAIR 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 ofthe said judgment, it was held as under:Smt. Shankari succeeded to life estate, which stood
enlarged in her full ownership underSection 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 underSection 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 whetherSection 15(1)of the
Act will apply orSection 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 whichSection 15(1)of the Act would apply.We do not think that the lawlaid down bythe 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 ofSection 14(1)of the Act, the rules of succession given under sub-Section 2ofSection 15can 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) ofSection 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 2ofSection 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) ofSection 15is 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.J.
							(U.C. Banerjee)



							J.
							(K.G. Balakrishnan)
November  6,  2001.