LACHMAN SINGH versus KIRPA SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 14-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
-
)"-L 
-~ 
---\ -
)J, 
J 
LACHMAN SINGH 
v. 
KIRPA SINGH & OTHERS 
APRIL 14, 1987 
A 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 195~ss. 3(j) & 15(1)-Hindu female-
Dying intestate-Whether her 'step-son' entitled to claim share in her 
property simultaneously with her 'son'. 
Words & Phrases-
c 
'Son-,-' Step-son' -Meaning of. 
Battan Singh had two wives, namely, Mahan Kaur and Khem 
Kaur. Mahan Kaur died during his lifetime after giving birth to two 
sons, Lachman Singh (petitioner) and Gurdas Singh. Gurdas Singh D 
pre-deceased Battan Singh leaving behind his widow Gurbax Kaur and 
his son Amarjit Singh. Respondent No. 1, Kirpa Singh is the son of the 
Battan Singh and Khem Kaur. Battan Singh died intestate after the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and his property devolved 
on his heirs including his second wife Khem Kaur. On her death, Kirpa 
Singh claimed her entire property on the ground that he was her only 
E 
son. Lachman Singh, Amarjit Singh and Gurbax Kaur claimed that 
Kirpa Singh was entitled to only 1/3rd share in the property of Khem 
Kaur, Lachman Singh was entitled to 1/3rd share and Amarjit Singh 
was entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share. 
Kirpa Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to the F 
entire property belonging to Khem Kaur against Lachman Singh, 
Amarjit Singh and Gurbax Kaur. The trial Court decreed the suit. The 
appeals filed by Lachman Singh before the Additional District Judge· 
and in the High Court were dismissed. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, 
G 
HELD: 1. Ordinprily laws of succession to property follow the 
. · ---( 
natural inclinations of men and women. [938C-D I 
2. The list of heirs ins. 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is 
enumerated having regard to the current notions about the propinquity 
H 
933 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
or nearness of relationship. The words 'son' and 'step-son' are not 
defined in the Act. [938C-D] 
3. Under the Act, a son of a female by her first marriage will not 
succeed to the estate of her 'second husband' on.his dying intestate. In 
the case of a woman it is natural that a step son, that is, the son of her 
husband by his another wife is a step away from the son who has come 
out of her own womb. But under the Act a step-son of a female dying 
intestate is an heir and that is so because the family headed by a male is 
considered as a social unit. If a step-son does not fall within the scope of 
the expression 'sons' in cl. (a) of s. 15(1) of the Act, he is sure to fall 
under cl. (b) thereof being an heir of the husband. [9380-F] 
4. The word 'sons' in cl. (a) of s. 15(1) of the Act includes: (i) sons 
born out of the womb of a female by same husband or by different 
husbands Including illegitimate sons too in view of s. 3(j) of the Act, and 
(ii) adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inherita-
nee. [938F~GJ 
5. Under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the coming into force 
of the Act, a step-son, i.e. a son of the husband of a female by another 
wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the female on 
her dying intestate. In that case the the son born out of her womb had 
precedence over a step-son. Parliament would have made express provi-
sion in the Act if it intended that there should be such a radical de-
parture from the past. [938G-H; 939A] 
6. The word 'sons' in cl. (a) of s. 15(1) of Act does not include 
'step-sons' and that step-sons fall in the category of the heirs of the 
husband referred to in cl. (b) thereof. [939A-B] 
Ma/lappa Fakirappa Sanna Nagashetti and Others v. Shivappa 
and another, A.I.R. 1962 Mysore 140; Rama Ananda Patil v. Appa 
Bhima Redekar and Others, A.I.R. 1969 Bombay 205; Gurnam Singh 
v. Smt. Ass Kaur and Others, A.l.R. 1977 P & H 103 and Smt. Kishori 
Bala Monda! v. Tribhanga Monda/ & Others, A.I.R. 1980 Calcutta 334 
approved. 
Ram Katori v. Prakash Nati L.L.R., [1968] 1 Allahabad 697, 
overruled. 
7. The rule of devolution in s. 15 of the Act applies to all kinds of 
properties left behind by a female Hindu except those dealt with by els. 
H 
(a) and (b) of s. 15(2) which make a distinction as regards the property 
'f 
)--. 
--"" . .. 
';..., 
~ 
' 
'v, 
,ll., 
..,,11;,:,
~ 
~~ 
' 
:
LACHMAN SINGH v. KIRPA SINGH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 
935 
inherited by her from her parents and the property inherited from her huS· 
A 
band or father-in-law and that too when she leaves
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.