Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for preference to full blood heirs, must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the object of the Act, which is to treat male and female heirs equally.

Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 18 - CONSTRUCTION - PREFERENCE TO FULL BLOOD HEIRS - NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Gopal, filed a suit claiming ownership of certain property left behind by his deceased step-brother, Amrit. The defendants, who were Amrit's relatives, contested the claim, arguing that they were the rightful heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/6th share in the property, while the defendants were entitled to the remaining shares. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the law laid down in a previous case, Purshottam Waman Gabale and others v. Shripad Ramchandra Pargaonkar and others, which held that full blood heirs do not exclude half blood heirs if the nature of the relationship is not the same in every other respect.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the decision in Purshottam's case was incorrect and overruled it. The court held that section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for preference to full blood heirs, must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the object of the Act, which is to treat male and female heirs equally. The court held that the words "if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect" in section 18 mean that the preference to full blood heirs applies only when the heirs are of the same degree of relationship with the deceased. The court held that the plaintiff, who was a half blood heir, was excluded from inheritance by the defendants, who were full blood heirs.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision in Purshottam's case, which held that full blood heirs do not exclude half blood heirs if the nature of the relationship is not the same in every other respect, was correct. 2. Whether section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for preference to full blood heirs, should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the object of the Act, which is to treat male and female heirs equally.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decision in Purshottam's case was incorrect because it would lead to results that are patently contrary to the purpose and intent of the Hindu Succession Act, which is to treat male and female heirs equally. 2. The court held that section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the object of the Act, which is to treat male and female heirs equally. The court held that the words "if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect" in section 18 mean that the preference to full blood heirs applies only when the heirs are of the same degree of relationship with the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

JUDGMENT - M.N.CHANDURKAR, Ag. C.J.:---This appeal has been referred to the Full Bench as the Division Bench which heard the appeal was of the opinion that the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Purshottam Waman Gabale and others v. Shripad Ramchandra Pargaonkar others)1, A.I.R. 1976 Bom. 375 needed reconsideration.

2. In Purshottam's case, the Division Bench on a construction of provisions of sections 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, took the view that the effect of section 18 was that only if there is a brother of full blood and a brother of half blood then the brother of full blood will exclude the brother of half blood and similarly, where there is a sister of full blood and a sister of half blood, the former will exclude the latter. The Division Bench was of the view that if there is a brother of a half blood and a sister of full blood the former will not be excluded by the latter and that it will be only the presence of a relation of a heir of half blood along with an heir of full blood in that particular category of the heir that the full blood heir will exclude the half blood heir. The correctness of this view of the Division Bench has been challenge by Mr. Abhyankar appearing on behalf of the appellants in this appeal.

3. The appellants in this appeal are original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 15 to 17. For a proper understanding of the nature of controversy, it is necessary to reproduce the genealogical table showing the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Dinkar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |

1st wife 2nd wife

| Saraswati

| | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |

Baburao Amrit Radhabai Bhagirathibai

died in died on died in died in 1932

1950 8-12-70 1969. |

| | I |

| | | ------------------------------------------ | | | | | |

| | | Yeshwant Govind Sidheshwar

| | | Deft.-15. Deft.- 16. Deft.-17.

| | |

| ------------------------------------------------------------------

| Waman Dattatraya Prabhakar Indumati Kamal

| Deft.-1. Deft.-2. Deft.-3. Deft.-4. Deft.-5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | | | |

Bhalchandra Digambar Shankar Vasant Krishnabai Sakhu

died in Deft.-8 Deft.-10 Deft.-11 Deft.-13 Deft-14

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1930 | | |

Yeshodhabai | | |

Deft.-6 | | |

| Trimbak Gopal Mahideo

| Deft.-9. Plff. Deft.-12.

Sudha

Deft.-7.

One Dinkar had two wives. From his first wife he had a son Baburao who died in 1950. His son Bhalchandra had predeceased him in 1930. Bhalchandra left behind him widow Yeshodhabai and daughter Sudha. They are defendants Nos. 6 and 7. From the second wife Dinkar had a son called Amrit and two daughters by names Radhabai and Bhagirathibai, Amrit died issueless in 1970. Radhabai died in 1969 and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are her sons and daughters. Bhagirathibai died in 1932. The defendants Nos. 15 to 17 are her sons. The plaintiff Gopal is son of deceased Baburao who was the step-brother of deceased Amrit. Amrit had left behind certain property which is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff. Amrit had executed a will on 10th September, 1968 which was duly registered and by the said will Amrit had bequeathed his property to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Amrit had never cancelled this will on 10th April, 1969, as alleged by the defendants. But alternatively his case was that this deed of cancellation must have been got executed by the defendants by taking undue advantage of the-weakness of mind and body of the deceased Amrit and by using undue influence and by fraud. According to the plaintiff, though he was sole owner of property for Amrit, since he desir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document