IMPORTANT POINT
Where the property is inherited by a female from her father or mother, in case of female dying intestate without leaving son, daughter or children of a predeceased son or daughter, the property would devolve on the heirs of her father in view of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Headnote:Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 15(2)-Female dying intestate without leaving son, daughter or children of a pre deceased son or daughter-Succession where property inherited by female from her father or mother-She got the property as daughter of her mother but in a compromise decree-Heirs of her father would be entitled to inherit her property in view of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act-Plaintiff-appellant and defendants 2-9/respondents 2-9, sons and daughter of R s father would be entitled to suit properties.
       Held : In the present case, it is not disputed that Rajathiammal died intestate without leaving any son or daughter or children of pre-deceased son or daughter. Hence, the property would devolve on the heirs of her father. It is contended that she got the property because of the compromise decree and, therefore, the property is not inherited by her from her father or mother. This submission, in our view, is without any substance. She was daughter of Sivabagyammal and, therefore, she was entitled to inherit the property of her maternal grandmother as her mother had expired. As some dispute was raised by the other heirs, a suit was filed. In that suit, rights of Rajathiammal were recognized and compromise decree was passed in her favour. Result is - she got the property as daughter of her mother. That means, she got the property not from her husband or father-in-law, but from her mother side. In that state of affairs, the heirs of her father, that is, heirs of S.V. Venugopala Chettiar would be entitled to inherit her property in view of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act. (Para 11)
       In the instant case, Rajathiammal acquired her rights by virtue of compromise which is a reiteration and a declaration of her pre-existing right. Therefore, on the death of Rajathiammal who died intestate and issueless, the suit properties devolved upon the heirs of her father, Venugopal Chettiar. The present plaintiff/appellant. V. Dandapani Chettiar, who is the son of the father of Rajthiammal through his third wife and respondents 2-9 and 23 who are children of the father of Rajathiammal and one of his wives becomes the heirs and entitled to succeed under Section 15(2) (a) of the Act since the properties came to Rajathiammal under the compromise decree amounts to a declaration of her pre-existing right under the compromise decree passed by the Courts. In our opinion, the plaintiff/appellant and respondents 2 to 9 and 23/defendants 2-9 and 23 are the only rightful heirs of Rajathiammal and would be entitled to succeed to the properties of Rajathiammal. (Paras 18 & 19)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - On death of a female Hindu intestate without issue, property inherited from her father or mother devolves on the heirs of her father under Section 15(2)(a) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - A compromise decree that declares a pre-existing right is treated as inheritance, triggering Section 15(2) devolution to the father’s heirs (!) (!) (!) . - The rights of the plaintiff/appellant and respondents 2–9 are recognized as the rightful heirs under Section 15(2)(a) (!) .

What is the applicable succession rule when a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving son, daughter, or children of a pre-deceased son or daughter, and the property was inherited by her from her father or mother?

What are the rights of the heirs of the father in such a scenario under the Hindu Succession Act?

How does a compromise decree declaring a pre-existing right affect the devolution of property upon the death of the female Hindu intestate?

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-The unsuccessful plaintiff who lost his case in all the three Courts is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant (Dandapani Chettiar) filed O.S. No.300 of 1974 in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him and defendants 2-9 and 23 (respondents 2-9 and 23) and for partition and separate possession of his 1/10th share in the movables and immovables and for recovery of past mesne profits. His case in brief is that the suit properties came to Rajathiammal and that the properties were obtained by her from her mother Sivabagyammal. Rajathiammal succeeded to the properties as Stridhana heir and on the death of Rajathiammal on 01-07-1972 issueless and intestate, in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the suit properties devolved upon the heirs of the father of Rajathiammal i.e. Venugopala Chettiar. The appellant (plaintiff) and the respondents 2-8 (defendants 2-8) are the children of the said Venugopala Chettiar through his wife and the 9th defendant (9th respondent) is the son of the said Venugopala Chettiar through another wife and the respondent No. 23 (defendant No.23) is one of his wives and they are the heirs.

2. The case of the first respondent Balasubramanian Chettiar (died) and the other respondents is that on the death of Rajathiammal, the suit properties devolved upon the heirs of the husband of Rajathiammal namely, Muthukumarasami under Section 15(1) of the Act in the absence of any issues to her. In the alternative, the respondents contended that Rajathiammal executed a Will, Exhibit B-26, dated 15-06-1972 and that in accordance with the said Will, there would be a testamentary succession for the first respondent-Balasubramanian Chetiar and the others.

3. The Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore framed as many as 22 issues. The Sub-Court took the view that the suit properties came to Rajathiammal only because of the Compromise Decree in O.S.Nos. 8 of 1926 filed by one Natanasabapathy - son of Sivabagyam and 15 of 1942 and her pre-existing right has no relevance. The Sub-Court also held that only Section 15(1) of the Act is attracted which would be in favour of the first respondent Balasubramanian Chettiar and his supporting respondents/defendants. As regards the alleged Will, Exhibit B-26, the trial Court held that it is a true and valid document executed by Rajathiammal. On these findings, the trial Court negativated appellant s/plaintiff s claim and dismissed the suit.

4. The appellant preferred an appeal, A.S.No. 1055 of 1977, in the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the suit properties devolved upon Rajathiammal not by inheritance from her mother but as Stridhana heir of her grand-mother under the compromise decrees in O.S. No. 8 of 1926 and O.S.No. 15 of 1942 granting the properties to her and, therefore, Section 15(1) of the Act alone applies, dismissed the appeal of the appellant by a judgment dated 17-12-1982. The learned Single Judge also held that the Will, Exhibit B-26, pleaded by the first defendant/first respondent herein and found to have been executed by Rajathiammal by the trial Court, is not a Will that has been proved and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding the Will was set aside in the appeal.

5. The appellant preferred a Letter Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1983 to a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench held that the property of Rajathiammal will devolve as per Section 15(1) and not Section 15(2) and that the property does not devolve on the plaintiff, the appellant herein and respondents 2-9/defendants 2-9. Therefore, the argument of the appellant/plaintiff that on the death of Sengamalam and Thaiyanayagi, Sivabagyam got absolute right in the properties was unacceptable. Holding so, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellant on 12-04-1988

Click Here to Read the rest of this document