VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the female Hindu who is having a limited ownership becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the (special) rules of succession given under Section 15(2) of the Act can be applied because they are based on the source from which she inherits the property and that would govern the situation.

Headnote:Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(a)-General Rules of Succession in case of death of Hindu female intestate and exceptions-Applicability of Section 14(1)-Suit land belonging to Hindu widow K-K dying intestate in 1951 -Suit land inherited by her daughters S and I, equally-S dying in 1960 leaving behind no issues-The property left by S mutated in name of her surviving sister I being heir of her father u/s 15(2)(a)-T (brother of S s pre-deceased husband) filed a suit for inheritance of S s property u/s. 15(b)(1)-Decreed by Trial Court, affirmed in first and 2nd appeals-It was held that suit property held by S on her death in 1960 devolved on T who was the heir of her husband-In appeal to Supreme Court-Supreme Court held on 31.3.1999 that property of S was the property inherited by her from her mother K, therefore, Section 15(2)(a) governed the succession and T had no right in the property left by S and that it would devolve on her sister I-T had died on 1.12.1986-No steps were taken to implead his heirs, nor it was brought to notice of Court on 31.3.1999-I.A. filed after decision of appeal for impleading the heirs of T and for an opportunity of hearing-Whether be allowed? (Yes)-Whether now it makes any difference? (No)-Whether Section 14(1) of the Act can affect the succession under Section 15(2)(a)? (No)-Source of inheritance will govern the situation-Effect-Appeal remain allowed-Case law referred.
       Held : I.A. No. 1 is allowed. (Para 1)
       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. (Para 4)
       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. 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 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. (Paras 7 & 8)
       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. (Para 12)
       Held consequently : 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. (Paras 13 & 14)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The source from which the property was inherited governs the succession, not the widow's acquisition of full ownership under Section 14(1) (!) (!) . - Property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother devolves on the heirs of the father in the absence of her children (!) (!) . - The rule under Section 15(2)(a) applies when property is inherited from parents, overriding general succession under Section 15(1) (!) (!) . - Section 14(1) does not alter the special succession pattern provided in Section 15(2)(a) for inherited property (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, confirming that the property left by Smt. Santi devolved on her sister, not on the brother-in-law (!) (!) . Important: Do not include any specific case law references or citations. While your writing should be informed by legal principles, avoid mentioning any particular cases or external sources.

How to determine the succession rule for property inherited by a Hindu widow under the Hindu Succession Act?

What are the rights of heirs when a Hindu widow inherits property from her parents?

What is the effect of Section 14(1) on the succession of property inherited by a Hindu female?

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-I.A. No. 1 is allowed.

2. 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].

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. 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. Santi s 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.

6. The relevant Section in the Hindu Succession 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 dau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1553

How to determine the succession rule for property inherited by a Hindu widow under the Hindu Succession Act?

What are the rights of heirs when a Hindu widow inherits property from her parents?

What is the effect of Section 14(1) on the succession of property inherited by a Hindu female?

Cases Referred (3)