Satya Charan Dutta vs Urmilla Sundari Desai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1969 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Satya Charan Dutta, Appellant
Versus
Urmila Sundari Dassi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1966, D/- 9-9-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. M. C. Bhandare, Partap Singh and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
C.BHANDARE, D.N.MUKHERJI, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, PRATAP SINGH

Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15 (1), 11, and 9 – Property – Deceased - Share – Heirs - Appeal by certificate - One who was governed by Bengal School of Hindu Law as modified by Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter called Act, died intestate in leaving no issue or lineal descendants - Her husband had pre-deceased her - Said left her surviving appellant and respondents 2 and 3, the brothers of her husband and respondent 1, her husband s sister - In respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for a declaration that as an heiress of she had 1/4 share in movable and immovable property left by her and that she be allotted her share by partition of those properties - Appellant entered appearance and took up plea in his written statement that under Act he and respondents 2 and 3 being brothers of husband of deceased were heirs in preference to respondent 1 who was sister of deceased s husband - Whether, according to order of succession as laid down in Class II of Schedule to Section 8 of Act, brother would succeed in preference to sister or whether brother and sister would succeed jointly having equal shares ?– Held, No reason or justification has been suggested for making such a distinction. Similarly, on appellant s argument son s daughter s son should have preference over son s daughter s daughter - Generally speaking, numbers or numerals are employed in a statute for sake of convenient and easy reference but their use cannot override statutory provisions - Nor is it possible in absence of any indication in sections or in Schedule itself to attribute such a radical departure from general scheme of classification of heirs, as had been suggested, namely, that in case of three entries only in Class II Legislature intended to create an order of preference and lay down same by use of arabic numerals - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the succession law case:

The case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically regarding whether a brother or a sister of a deceased husband succeeds in preference to the other, or if they succeed jointly with equal shares (!) (!) .
The deceased, Ratnamala Dassi, died intestate leaving no issue; her husband had predeceased her, leaving the appellant (her husband's brother) and the respondent (her husband's sister) as surviving heirs (!) .
Under Section 15(1) of the Act, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the heirs of her husband, which falls under Entry (b) of the relevant section (!) .
Section 16, Rule 3 states that the devolution of property on heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d), and (e) of Section 15 follows the same order and rules as if the property belonged to the father, mother, or husband who died intestate (!) .
Consequently, the determination of heirs relies on Section 8, which dictates that property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves first to Class I heirs, and secondly to Class II heirs if no Class I heirs exist (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Schedule to Section 8 lists "brother" and "sister" together in Entry II of Class II, with "brother" prefixed by numeral (3) and "sister" by numeral (4) (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that the Arabic numerals indicated a specific order of preference, placing the brother ahead of the sister (!) .
The Court held that the use of Arabic numerals is merely for convenient reference and does not create an order of preference; the Court found no justification for distinguishing between male and female heirs in this manner (!) (!) .
Section 11 explicitly states that property shall be divided among heirs in any one entry in Class II so that they share equally, which contradicts the argument that numerals create separate entries with preference (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the Act aims to provide equal distribution between male and female heirs, and treating the brother as superior to the sister would run counter to this scheme (!) .
The Court concluded that there is no merit in the appeal, as the brother and sister must succeed jointly with equal shares, and dismissed the appeal (!) .

Judgment

GROVER, J. : This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. One Ratnamala Dassi who was governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law as modified by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act, died intestate in January 1964 leaving no issue or lineal descendants. Her husband Monmotha Nath Dutt had pre-deceased her. The said Ratnamala Dassi left her surviving the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, the brothers of her husband and respondent 1, Urmila Sundari Dassi her husband s sister. In 1964 respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for a declaration that as an heiress of Ratnamala Dassi she had 1/4 share in the movable and immovable property left by her and that she be allotted her share by partition of those properties. The appellant entered appearance and took up the plea in his written statement that under the Act he and respondents 2 and 3 being the brothers of the husband of the deceased Ratnamala Dassi were the heirs in preference to respondent 1 who was the sister of the deceased s husband. The suit was tried on the original side by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court who granted a preliminary decree on December 23, 1964 in favour of respondent 1 holding that she had 1/4 share in the estate left by Ratnamala Dassi. The appellant preferred an appeal to a Division Bench which was dismissed.

3. The sole point which has to be considered is whether, according to the order of succession as laid down in Class II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Act, brother would succeed in preference to the sister or whether the brother and sister would succeed jointly having equal shares ? According to Section 15 (1) when a female Hindu dies intestate her property devolves according to the Rules set out in Section 16. Section 15 divides the groups of heirs of a female dying intestate into five categories described as Entries (a) to (e). We are concerned, in the present case, with Entry (b) which is "secondly, upon the heirs of the husband". Section 16 provides that the order of succession among heirs referred to in Sec. 15 shall be and the distribution of the intestate s property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules :

Rule 1. "Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.

Rule 2.... .............

Rule 3. The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) of Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father s or the mother s or the husband s, as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate s death."

As the property in the present case was of the husband of Ratnamala Dassi, we have to turn to Sec. 8 to find out who would have been his heirs. Section 8 reads :

Section 8. "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this chapter-

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule;

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased."

The Schedule mentioned in Section 8 to the extent it is material is reproduced below :-

CLASS I

"Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased son; son of a predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter; widow of a predeceased son; son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased s son of a predeceased son; widow of a predeceased son of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document