Heirs specified in Group IV succeed simultaneously.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- This second appeal concerns the succession to the estate of a Hindu unmarried female Chidambarathammal who died issueless sometime in February, 1957. The question that falls for consideration in the appeal relates to the true construction of Sections 6, 9 and 11 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which we shall refer to hereafter as the Act.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these : One Shanmugha who together with his brothers son, the first respondent to this appeal, constituted a joint family, effected a partition with the latter. The partition arrangement is evidenced by a document dated 31st May 1940 under which Shanmugha became entitled to the properties set out in the schedules 1 to 3, to the plaint in the present litigation. Shanmugha died about two years afterwards leaving behind him his second wife and a minor daughter Chidambarathammal by her. At the time of his death he had in addition to the aforesaid properties, those set out in schedules 4 and 5 to the plaint, which he had inherited from his predeceased first wife. His second wife succeeded him but she survived him only for a period of about three years. On her death, the entire properties i.e. all those described in Schs. 1 to 5 were inherited by Chidambaradhammal. By virtue of S. 14 of the Act, which came into force when she was alive, her title thereto became absolute. She died shortly there-after.

3. The first respondent claiming as her heir took possession of the entire properties. The appellant, one among the several children of Shanmughas sister, claimed on behalf of them all, a half share in the properties and instituted the suit for partition out of which this appeal arises. The suit was resisted by the first respondent, who claimed a preferential right to Chidambarathammals properties. If that defence were to fail, he will have not merely to part with half a share in favour of the sisters children of Shanmugha, but share the other half along with his own brothers or sisters, if any.

4. The rights between the contesting claimants have to be decided on the terms of S. 15, read with S. 9 of the Act. The Courts below have taken different views, the trial Court upholding the claim of the appellant and the lower appellate Court holding that as between the first respondent and the appellant, the former would exclude the latter.

5. Under Ss. 15 and 16 of the Act, where a Hindu female dies leaving property which she had obtained from her father (as in the present case) such property will, in the absence of her own issue devolve on the heirs of her father; the order and manner of succession thereto being regulated as if the property belonged to him. In other words, the section creates a fiction for ascertaining the heirs of the female; it does not however mean that the property reverts to the estate of her father and that succession is traced to his property.

6. It is now necessary to find out who Shanmughas heirs would have been on the date when Chidambarathammal died.

7. Succession to the estate of a male is prescribed by S. 8 which says that in the absence of any of the preferential heirs set out in class I to the schedule, those relations specified in class II will inherit, failing the agnates within a certain degree; and in the absence of agnates, cognates. When Chidambarathammal died there were no heirs to Shanmugha under class I. There were however Shanmughas relations coming under Class II. It will be conveneint at this stage to set out the list of heirs specified under class II as the argument in the case turns mainly on it.

Class II.

I. Father.

II. (1) Sons daughters son; (2) Sons daughters daughter; (3) Brothers; (4) sisters.

III. (1) daughters sons son, (2) daughters sons daughter, (3) daughters daughters son, (4) daughters daughters daughter.

IV. Brothers son, (2) sisters son, (3) Brothers daughter (4) sisters daughter.

V. Fathers father; fathers mother.

VI. Fathers widow, brothers widow.

VII. Fathers brother, fathe