High Court Of Orissa
S. C. MOHAPATRA
KRUSHNA CHANDRA NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
NISAMANI BEWA - Respondent
Second Appeal 246 Of 1980
Decided On : 03/10/1986
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - S. 15 (2) (B), 16 (3) - SUCCESSION TO PROPERTY INHERITED BY FEMALE HINDU FROM HUSBAND - DEVOLUTION UPON HEIRS OF HUSBAND - COGNATES OF HUSBAND ENTITLED TO SUCCEED IN ABSENCE OF AGNATES.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to the properties of Bhikari Charan Mohanty, husband of Nisamani, the deceased plaintiff respondent. Nisamani claimed the properties as the widow of Bhikari, and the properties were admittedly of Bhikari. The issue was whether Smt. Premalata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty, the daughters of the sister's son of Bhikari, were the heirs of late Bhikari.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Smt. Premalata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty were the heirs of late Bhikari, since under S. 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act the properties inherited by a female Hindu from her husband are to devolve upon the heirs of the husband. The court also held that the suit did not abate, as the question of status was involved in the suit, and the consolidation authorities could not have granted the relief claimed.
Issues: 1. Whether Smt. Premalata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty were the heirs of late Bhikari Charan Mohanty? 2. Whether the suit abated due to the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under S. 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties inherited by a female Hindu from her husband are to devolve upon the heirs of the husband. 2. Under S. 16 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 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 S. 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. 3. The suit did not abate, as the question of status was involved in the suit, and the consolidation authorities could not have granted the relief claimed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed on compromise. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THE original respondent having died, the appellants applied for substitution of Smt. Premalata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty as her legal representatives. Admittedly, they are the daughters of the deceased son of the sister of late Bhikari Charan Mohanty, the husband of the respondent. In other words, they are the heirs of the husband of the deceased respondent. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 294 of 1984. The application was objected to by one Brundaban Mohanty, who is brother's son of the deceased respondent. By order dt. 22nd April, 1985, the application for substitution was allowed subject to the objection of Brundaban to be delved into at the Final hearing of the Second Appeal.
( 2 ) DURING hearing of the Second Appeal an application for compromise under O. 23, R. 3, Civil P. C. was filed by the appellants and the substituted legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Since recording of the compromise would depend upon the validity of the substituted respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, the said question is taken up first.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the dispute in this Second Appeal relates to the properties of Bhikari Charan Mohanty, husband of Nisamani, the deceased plaintiff respondent. Although the relationship of Nisamani with Bhikari was disputed in the Title Appeal, it has been conclusively decided as fact that Nisamani was the validly married wife of Bhikari. Thus, on death of Bhikari, Nisamani became the full owner of the interest of Bhikari in the disputed properties.
( 4 ) ANOTHER issue in the suit was relating to adoption of Amarendra Kumar Nayak alias Mohanty, appellant 3 by Bhikari, which has been negatived. However, that question would not arrest the decision on the question of substitution.
( 5 ) NISAMANI having claimed the properties as widow of Bhikari and the properties in dispute admittedly being of Bhikari succession to such properties in the hands of Nisamani would be governed under S. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, since it is not disputed that the parties are Hindus. S. 15 (2) (b) would be applicable to this case. It reads as follows :"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus - (1 ). . . (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1) - (a ). . . (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-Law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter, of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub-Section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. "the clear language of this Section excludes the claim of Brundaban, the brother's son of deceased respondent.
( 6 ) THE next question is whether Smt. Premalata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty are the heirs of late Bhikari, since under S. 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act the properties inherited by a female Hindu from her husband are to devolve upon the heirs of the husband. Rule 3 of S. 16 is to be attracted for this purpose. It reads as follows. :"16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu - the order of succession among the heirs referred to in S. 15 shall be and the distribution of the intestate's property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely :- rule 1 : -. . . 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 S. 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. "premalata and Snehalata being the daughters of the sister's son of Bhikari are his cognates as defined under S. 3
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.