Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Prafulla C. Pant, T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
Pranab Kumar Deb and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 437 of 2010
Decided On : 15-11-2013
Hindu Succession Act - Vires of Entry IV of Class II Heirs - Section 9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the vires of entry IV of class II heirs mentioned in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, seeking to include 'deceased brother's son', 'deceased brother's daughter', 'deceased sister's son', and 'deceased sister's daughter' in entry II of class II heirs. The dispute arose from the removal of certain properties by respondent No. 4 from the rooms occupied by the deceased, leading to a legal challenge based on the alleged unreasonableness and arbitrariness of the classification between sons of pre-deceased brothers and other brothers under Section 9 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the classification between pre-deceased brother's sons and the living brother of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was based on settled principles of Hindu law, including the offering of pinda and oblations to ancestors, and was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The court upheld the constitutionality of entry IV of class II in the schedule of the Act, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the constitutionality of entry IV of class II heirs in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the alleged discrimination against the sons of the pre-deceased brother of the deceased in comparison to the living brother of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of offering pinda and oblations to ancestors, as well as the order of succession among sapindas, to justify the classification between pre-deceased brother's sons and the living brother of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also emphasized the importance of sustaining the validity of the impugned law and according due regard and deference to the legislative process.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the vires of entry IV of class II heirs in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, CJ.:-By means of this writ petition, the writ petitioners have challenged vires of entry IV of class n heirs mentioned in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is further prayed that terms "deceased brother's son", "deceased brother's daughter", "deceased sister s son" and "deceased sister daughter" be taken to have been included in the entry H of class n of Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondent No. 4 are related by following pedigree :-
Dr. Pulin Behari Deb (Died 11.4.1944).
Sushma Prabodh Subodh Sudhir Sukumari
(Daughter) Died in 1996 (Son) (Son) (Son) Died in 1986 (Died in 1984 Died in 2008 (Daughter Died in 200
XXX XXX XXX
3. As such, petitioners are nephews of respondent No. 4. Shyamal. Late Dr. Pulin Behari Deb who was ancestor of the petitioners and respondent No. 4 was a medical practitioner who left his properties after his death in Shillong. It is alleged by the petitioners that respondent No. 4 removed certain furnitures and articles from the rooms occupied by Subodh Chandra Deb (deceased) on which the petitioners served a notice dated 4th August, 2010 on respondent No. 4 to get back the furnitures to their original position. In response to the said notice, respondent No.4 sent a reply dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure II) stating that due to the death of Subodh Chandra Deb in the year 1984, the property of (L) Pulin Behari Deb, after the death of Smti. Konika Deb (widow of Subodh Chandra Deb) on 21.2.1997, devolved on surviving brother and sister namely, Sudhir Chandra Deb and Sukumari Dutta to exclude the nephew and nieces through another brother Probodh Chandra Deb. Section 9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that among the class II heirs, first the relatives mentioned in the first entry are to be preferred to those mentioned in the second entry and those mentioned in the second entry are required to be preferred to those mentioned in the third entry and so on. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the classification between sons of pre-deceased brother and other brothers is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is further pleaded that the children of the pre-deceased brother should have been placed equally with the brothers and sisters in the same entry in the matters of intestate of succession of properties. Challenging the entry IV of class n on the ground of its being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition was filed to set aside the entry IV of class II heirs in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and to declare that "deceased brother's son", "deceased brother's daughter", "deceased sister s son", "deceased sister's daughter" are included in entry II of class II of heirs in the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No.4, Shyamal Deb, the relationship between the parties (petitioners and respondent No.4) is not denied. However, it is stated that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is further stated that the writ petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that there is no infirmity in the constitutional validity of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is contended that source of classification between brothers and sons of deceased brothers is based on Shruti, Smriti and Customs of Hindu law. It is further stated that the codified Hindu Succession Law (Hindu Succession Act, 1956) aims at insuring a uniform civil code of personal law of Hindus removing the gender inequality in matters of inheritance. It is pleaded that the distinct characteristic of Bengal School (Dayabhaga) is that succession is governed by capacity for conferring spiritual benefits in Parvana Sradha as under:-
"a) Pinda or an entire cake, called an undivided obligation which is offered to three immediate paternal ancestors and the three immediate maternal anc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
