The husband, being the sole legal heir, retains rights over the deceased wife's assets under Hindu Succession Act, regardless of allegations against him.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition seeking to set aside Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds, to declare the petitioners' title over the A schedule property and for recovery of gold ornaments, was dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioners are in the appeal.

2. The petitioners in the original petition are the parents of one late Bindu, who was married to the 1^st respondent. The marriage was on 05.11.1990. Bindu committed suicide on 26.01.1997. In connection with the marriage, in respect of the A schedule property, Ext.A1 Sale Deed was executed by the parents of Bindu in favour of the 1^st respondent. The conveyance was intended for the benefit of their daughter, Bindu. The 1^st respondent, on 25.04.2008, conveyed the property under Ext.A2 Sale Deed in favour of the 2^nd respondent. It is alleged that, during the subsistence of the marriage with Bindu, the 1^st respondent contracted the second marriage, leading to the suicide of Bindu. The property belonged to Bindu and is to revert to the petitioners, it is contended.

3. It is also claimed that, at the time of marriage, the gold ornaments described in the petition B schedule were given to Bindu by the petitioners, and that the same has been misappropriated by the 1^st respondent. It is on the said allegation that the original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 Sale Deeds and for declaring the petitioners title over the property, and also for return of the gold ornaments.

4. The defendants through separate written statements denied the allegations.

5. The Family Court dismissed the original petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

7. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that, the conveyance of property under Ext.A1 in favour of the 1^st respondent was only in the nature of 'Sthreedhana' property of Bindu and it belonged to her. Therefore, though A1 is in the name of the 1^st respondent, he would not have any right over the property. It is also alleged that it is of the conduct of the 1^st respondent that led to the suicide of Bindu and that he is dis-entitled to inherit any of the assets of Bindu.

8. We find that, even if we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the property was 'Sthreedhana' property of Bindu and belonged exclusively to her, the claim of the petitioners cannot succeed. Ext.B4 is a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22171 of 2008 of this Court. The writ petition arose from the proceedings in execution for claim for maintenance, which was initiated by Bindu. On her death, it was sought to be prosecuted by her parents. As per Ext.B4 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that Bindu had died issue-less and that the sole legal heir is the husband, who is the 1^st respondent herein. After analysing the relevant statutory provisions under the Hindu Succession Act , this Court concluded thus;

“We find that the combined effect of Section 15 (1) (a) and Rule 1 of Section 16 is that the entire asset of Bindu, who had died issue-less, would devolve upon her husband only.”

Therefore, it is now not open to the petitioners to contend that they are the legal heirs of Bindu. Ext.B4 judgment concludes the issue. That apart, there is no material to find that the husband abetted the suicide. The husband having been held to be the legal heir, the conveyance by the husband, namely, Ext.A2, is valid.

9. Coming to the claim for the gold ornaments, the Family Court found that there was no evidence to find that

25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to Bindu at the time of marriage and the same were misappropriated by the 1^st respondent. Not even the photographs relating to the marriage were produced to substantiate that she was wearing so much quantity of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Apart from that, for the very same reason mentioned supra, the 1^st respondent being the sole legal heir