Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Appellants: Raj Rani and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Bimla Rani
R.S.A. No. 164/2005 and CM Nos. 8899/2005, 2149/2006 and 10190/2010
Decided On: 03.06.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prem Bhusan Dewan and Gurjeet Kaur, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.N. Gupta, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the word 'daughter' in Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act does not include a 'step-daughter', impacting the succession rights and entitlement to property.
Headnote:
HSA - Property Partition - Section 14, Section 15, Section 16 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and their interpretation in the context of property partition and succession. The court clarified that the word 'daughter' in Section 15(1)(a) does not include a 'step-daughter', and thus, the property devolves upon the natural daughters alone.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought partition of a property owned by her late father. The trial judge dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and passed a preliminary decree for partition, apportioning 1/3rd share to each party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will bequeathing the property to the Defendants had not been proved, and thus, all parties were entitled to a 1/3rd share in the property. The step-daughter was excluded from succession under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act in relation to the entitlement of the step-daughter to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'daughter' in Section 15(1)(a) does not include a 'step-daughter', based on the absence of an express provision to that effect in the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 05.08.2003. Vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2003, the suit filed by the Plaintiff Bimla Rani seeking partition of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. 14, Pandit Park, Patparganj Road, opp. Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) had been dismissed. Impugned judgment has reversed this finding; preliminary decree for partition had been passed apportioning 1/3rd share to each of the parties, i.e., to the Plaintiff and the two Defendants.
2. Plaintiff Bimla Rani is the daughter of late Sh. Bhola Ram, borne out of the wedlock of late Bhola Ram and Smt. Lajo Devi. Defendants are the step sisters of the Plaintiff; Defendant No. 1 and 2 having been borne out of the wedlock of late Sh. Bhola Ram and Smt. Motia Rani. Father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants late Sh. Bhola Ram is common.
3. Bhola Ram was the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had by a registered will dated 01.03.1966 bequeathed this property to Motia Rani. Motia Rani had by a subsequent will dated 26.11.1983 bequeathed this property to her two daughters i.e. the two Defendants. There is no dispute that after the death of Bhola Ram by virtue of his will dated 01.03.1966; Motia Rani had become the owner of this suit property. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as HSA) , any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner; the explanation explains that this property includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person. Thus, there is no dispute that the suit property had devolved upon the Motia Rani in her capacity as a full-fledged owner.
4. The contention of the Plaintiff is that she also being the daughter of Bhola Ram was entitled to a share in the suit property; suit for partition had been filed. Defense of the Defendants was that Motia Rani had bequeathed this property in their favour by virtue of her will dated 26.11.1983. This will had admittedly not been proved. Contention of the Defendants is that even otherwise under the law of succession, the daughters of Motia Rani alone could have inherited this property from Motia Rani and Bimla Devi not being her "daughter", (under Section 15 of the HSA); she had no interest in the suit property).
5. Six issues had been framed by the trial judge. Trial judge was of the view that the will of Motia Rani had been proved; since the Plaintiff knew about this will of Motia Rani, she not having challenged it; it did not now lie in her mouth to assert to the contrary. In terms of the aforenoted will, the suit property had been validly bequeathed to her two daughters; suit of Bimla Devi had been dismissed.
6. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding of the trial judge. Court was of the view that the will of Motia Rani has not been proved in accordance with law; all the parties were entitled a 1/3rd share in to the suit property; a preliminary decree for partition had been passed in favour of all the parties apportioning 1/3 rd share each to the Plaintiff and the two Defendants.
7. This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on 31.08.2009, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:
Whether the Appellate Court did not rightly appreciate the provision of Section 15 read with Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act while passing preliminary decree for partition in favour of the Respondent?
8. The question which thus has to be answered by this Court is as to whether the impugned judgment had correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 15 of the HSA or not by bequeathing 1/3rd share to the two natural
