DAYA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ANR. versus DHAN KAUR

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 05-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

528 
DAYA SINGH (dead) THROUGH L.RS. & ANR. 
v. 
DHAN KAUR 
March 5, 1974 
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIR!SWAMI, JJ,J 
A 
Hbu!u Succession. Act, 1956, sec. 8--Whether effects change in old Hindu Law-
B 
Death of female limited owner who succeeds last male holder-Customary Law of 
Punjab whether app/icable-Held, succession opens on death of limited owner and 
would be governed by law then in force-Interpretation of statUtes. 
The respondent's father, W,· who owned the suit property died in 1933. His 
widow, who succeeded to the estate, gifted-the property to her daughter, the res. 
pondent. The appellants :filed a suit as reversioners of·W questioning the gift. The 
suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed on appeal After coming into force 
C 
of tho Hindu Succession Act on 17-6-.1956, the widow again made a gift of the same 
lands to the respondent. She died in 1963. The appellants then filed the sui~ out 
of which this appeal arose, for possession of the lands alleging that the second gift 
\Vas void. The trial court decreed their.suit but on appeal the respondent succeeded· 
in the first Appellate Court as well as in the High Court on second appeal. 
On appeal by.special Ieave_to this Court, 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD - (i) Following the decisions of the Privy Council in Moniram Kolita v. 
Keri Kofitani, I.LR. S Calcutta 776 at 789 and Duni Chand v. Anar Kali. A.I.R. 1946 
P.C.173, (infra) the words .. dying intestate" in Sec. 8 of the Act must be interpreted 
as merely meaning .. in the case of intestacy of a Hindu male'" and to place this inter- · 
pretation on the Act is not to give retrospective effect to its provisions. The refe- . 
rence is only to the fact of· intestacy. The material point of time is the date when 
the succes.sion opens, namely, the death of the widow. Thus this propositions fol-
low (i) Succession opens on the death of the limited owner, and (ii) the law then in 
force would govern the succession. 
[532D-O] 
Moniram Kolita v. Keri Ko/itani, l.L.R. S, Calcutta 776 789 and Duni Chand 
v. Anar Kali, A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 173, followed. 
Eramma v. Verrupanna, (1966) 2 S.C.R. 626, explained and distinguished. 
Banso v. Charan Singh, A.I.R. 1961, Punjab 45 and Kuldip Sing v. Karnail Singh, 
A.I.R. 1961, Pwtjab, 573, approved. 
D 
E 
Kempiah v. Giriga1nma, 'A.I.R. 1966, Mysore 189, overruled. __ -
F 
Renuka Bal~ v. Aswini Kumar A.I.R. 1961,_Patna -499 ind Sam p,thla.n:liri v. 
Lakshmi Ammal, A.I.R. 1963 Madras, 50, distinguished. 
(it) Succession to wS-Cstate in the present case opened when his widow died and 
it would have to be decided on the basis tJ:lat W died in 1963 when his widow 
died. In that case succession to his estate would have to be decided on the basis of 
s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The accepted position under the Hindu law is 
that where a limited owner succeeds to an estate the succession to the estate on 
her death will have to be decided on the basis that the last full owner died on that 
day. If, therefore. succession opens and is to be decided on the basis of the last full , 
owner dying on the date of the death of the limited owner it is onJy the law in force 
at the time of the death of the limited owner that should govern the case. To bold 
that the old Hindu law ~pplies to such a case is to allow your imaWaation to 
boggle. 
[5331<1.-c, G·HJ 
Eastoid Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Fmsbury Borough Council, 1952 A.C. 109, 132, 
G 
per Lord Acsquit and Venka taclta/am v. Bornbay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1959) 
H 
S.C.R. 703, referred to. 
· 
The reversioners• right being a mere Spes succeSsionis there is no quesHon of 
impairing existing rights by adopting the interpretation we place on s. 8 apart from 
c 
1l 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DAYA SINGH v. OHAN KAUR (A/agiriswami, l.) 
/ 
529 
the fact that it does not amount to giving retrospective operation to s. 8 . Of course, 
if the property had already vested in a person under the old Hindu Law, it cannot be 
1 
divested. We can see no reason either in principle or on authority why the principle 
consistently followed under the earlier Hindu law that on the death of the limited 
owner succession opens and would be decided on the basis that the last male owner 
died on ·that day, should not apply even after coming into force of the A.ct. In the 
view we have taken it is s. 8 of the Act that applies and not the Customary Law. 
[534C-D,E-F.535G] 
Clv1L AppELLATE JURISD1CTION: Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.