SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL versus MUTHUVENKATARAMA IYENGAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 03-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SEETHALAKSHMJ AMMAL 
A 
v. 
" 
~ 
MUTHUVENKATARAMA IYENGAR AND ANR. 
APRIL 3, 1998 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P.WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 15. 
Succession-Hindu female-Dying intestate-Rule of succession-Heirs 
of husband-Determination of-G, a Hindu female dying intestate-Her c 
husband and son predeceased-Properties left by her-Suit filed for 
declaration of ownership by her daugther-in-law-High Court held that 
daugther-in-law was not heir of her mother-in-law-Ground that when 
husband of G died her son was alive-Therefore daugther-in-law cannot be 
called the window of a pre-deceased son-Appeal before Supreme Court- D 
Held the finding of the High Court proceeded on a misconception of the 
provisions of the Hindu Suceession Act-It was not right in coming to the 
conclusion that the appellant was not an heir of G-The heirs of a female 
Hindu have to be ascertained not at the time of his husband's death but at 
the time of her death because the succession opens only at the time of her E 
death-The appellant-daugther-in-law was the widow of a pre-deceased son 
on the date when G died-Being the widow of his pre-deceased son, she will 
be the heir entitled to succeed 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1944 of 
1998. 
F 
;.. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.96 of the Madras High Court 
in S.A. No. 2008 of 1982. 
M.A. Chinnaswamy for the Appellant. 
G 
V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent. 
~ 
.-< 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant is the <laugher-in-law of the deceased Gomathi Ammal. 
Venkatarama Iyengar, the husband of the appellant was the only son of H 
673 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A Goir.athi Ammal and her husband Sesha Iyengar. He died prior to the death 
ofGomathi Ammal. Venkatarama Iyengar and the appellant have no children. 
The husband of Gomathi Ammal also died long prior to her death. The 
appellant filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of properties 
left by Gomathi Ammal who died intestate. The respondent, claiming to be the 
B son of Gomathi Ammai's brother, contested the suit on the ground that 
Gomathi Ammal made a will in his favour. 
The will has not been accepted either by the trial Court or by the first 
appellate Court or by the High Court in second appeal. The only reason why 
the High Court has allowed the second appeal is on the ground that the 
C appellant is not an heir of her mother-in-law under the Hindu Succession Act. 
This finding proceeds on a misconception of the provisions of the 
Hindu Succession Act. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act provides 
general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. Under sub-section 
D (1), the property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall devolve (a) firstly, 
upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son 
or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. 
Gomathi Ammal does not have any heirs falling under (a). Therefore, we have 
to examine who are the heirs of her husband. The heirs of a male Hindu are 
set out in the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act. Heirs in Class I include 
E a widow of a pre-deceased son. The appellant fits this description. But the 
High Court has held that when Sesha Iyengar, the husband of Gomathi Ammal 
died, their son Venkatarama Iyengar was alive. So the appellant cannot be 
called the widow of a pre-deceased son. 
F 
In order to decide who are the heirs of a female Hindu under category 
(b) of Section 15 (1), one does not have to go back to the date of the death 
of the husband to ascertain who were his heirs at that time. The heirs have 
to be ascertained not at the time of the husband's death but at the time of 
the wife's death because the succession opens only at the time of her death. 
Her heirs under Section 15(1) (b) will have to be ascertained as if the 
G succession to her husband had opened at the time of her death. Thus, if at 
the time ofGomathi Ammal's death, there is any heir of her husband who fits 
the description in the schedule of being the widow of his pre-deceased son, 
she will be one of the heirs entitled to succeed. The status of the heir must 
be determined at the time of the death of the female whose heirs are being 
H ascertained. The appellant was the widow of a pre-deceased son on the date 
SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL v. MUTHUVENKATARAMA IYENGAR 
675 
when Gomathi Ammal died. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not r

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