Decided on-: 31 March, 1999
Bench-: Justice A.P. Mishra, Justice U.C. Banerjee
Judgment By-: Justice U.C. Banerjee
FACTS
Kehar Singh owned land in Village Antowali (now in Pakistan) and, after his death, his widow Kirpo inherited the estate. Kirpo, having two daughters, Santi and Indro, moved to India. In 1951, Kirpo received land in India in exchange for the property left in Pakistan and passed away the same year, leaving the allocated land to her daughters. In 1961, Santi passed away, and in 1963, the land was mutated in favor of Indro. Indro entered a land sale agreement in 1963, leading to a suit for specific performance, which was decreed in her favor. Teja Singh, brother of Santi's deceased husband, then filed a suit for possession of Santi's half share of the land under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as a successor. The appellant contests this, asserting Section 15(2) is applicable. The trial court ruled in favor of Teja Singh, applying Section 15(1), a decision upheld in subsequent appeals. The appellant now seeks redress through the present appeal by special leave.
ISSUE
Whether, given the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 15(1) or Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is applicable.
JUDGMENT
The court clarifies that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has distinct spheres under its sub-sections. Sub-section (1) applies to properties of a female Hindu dying intestate, while sub-section (2) provides exceptions to sub-section (1). Section 15(2)(a) excludes properties inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother from the purview of sub-section (1). This results in two types of properties: general properties covered by sub-section (1) and those excluded by sub-section (2), i.e., properties inherited from her father or mother.
Section 15(1) combined with Section 16 specifies the class entitled to succeed the property of a Hindu female dying intestate. In this case, where both Indro and Santi inherited from their mother, the succession falls under sub-section (2). The judgment criticizes lower courts, including the High Court, for incorrectly deciding that the property should devolve on the heirs of Santi’s pre-deceased husband. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and orders of the High Court and lower courts were set aside.
Comments