SMT. RADHIKA versus AGHNU RAM MAHTO

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 07-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. RADHIKA 
A 
v. 
AGHNU RAM MAHTO 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law 
Hindu Succession Act 1956:·Sections 15 and 16. 
Hindu fem ale inheriting property of great grand-father through C 
mother-Dying intestate-Husband claiming a share in the estate-Held hus-
band stood excluded from succession to such property. 
The appellant's mother inherited the suit properties from her 
maternal grand-father. Later she died intestate. The claim of the D 
respondent (father of the appellant) for half of the share as Class-I heir 
of his wife (appellant's mother) was rejected by the Trial Court. On 
appeal the District Judge held that the appellant and the respondent are 
class· I heirs and decreed the suit in equal .moiety. The appellant's second 
appeal was dismissed by the High Court against which appeal was filed E 
in this court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD: The courts below overlooked the provision in.Section lS of F 
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and illegally granted a decree. Section 15 
clearly indicates that for the property inherited by a' female Hindu from 
her father or mother in the absence of her son, daughter or children of the 
pre-deceased son or daughter, the succession opens to· the heirs of the 
father or mother and not to class-I heirs in the order specified in sub-
section (1) of Section 15 and in the order of Section 16. In other words, G 
the children an~ children of the pre-deceased son or daughter of the Hindu 
female alone are entitled to get such property and the husband stands 
excluded from the succession to the property. Since the appellant's mother 
had inherited the property from the grand·fiJther, her husband stood 
excluded from succession to the estate left by her. (209-C·D] 
H 
,, 
'207 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2280 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.83 of the Patna High 
Court in S.A. No. 17 of 1982 (R). 
B 
Mrs. Rachna Gupta for Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant. 
M.P. Jha for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court delivered : 
C 
The appellant is the daughter of the respondent though second wife. 
Admittedly, her mother inherited the properties of her maternal 
. grandfather. The appellant is the only issue to her mother. When her 
mother died intestate, the respondent-husband filed the partition suit No. 
39 of 1979 in the court of Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi claiming half the share 
D as class-1 heir of his wife. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit ori the ground 
that during the life time of the mother of the appellant, she had bequeathed 
the properties to the appellant under a gift deed and that therefore, the 
decree cannot be granted as she died after she was divested of her 
possession. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree and held that 
the gift is not valid and that the appellant and respondent are class-1 heirs 
E and decreed the suit for partition in equal moiety. In Second Appeal No. 
17/82, by Judgment and Decree dated 9.11.1983 the High Court dismissed 
same. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
F 
G 
The facts are not in dispute, namely, the mother of the appellant 
inherited the suit property from her father. Section 15 of the Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 regulates the succession to the estate of female 
Hindus. Sub-Section (1) provides that "the property of a female Hindu 
dying inestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16----
( 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; and. so on in the 
order specified. 
But sub-section (2) with non-obstante clause excludes the applicability of 
H Sub-section (1). Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) provides that; 
..
-. 
_., 
RADHIKA v. AR. MAIITO 
209 
"(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or A 
mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the 
deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son of 
daughter), not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) 
in .the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; " 
(Cause (b) is not relevant, hence omitted). 
B 
A reading thereto clearly indicates that for the property inherited by 
a female Hindu from her father or mother, in other words female's paternal 
side, in he absenc

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