STATE OF PUNJAB versus BALWANT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 09-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
BALWANT SINGH & ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 1991 
B 
[K JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
Section 15(1) and (2f-Hindu female dying intestate leaving behind 
property derived from her husband-Devolution of-O~ject of sub-section 
C (2)(h)-Not to eliminate the other heirs under sub-section (1) and not to 
exclude them from inheritance altogether. 
Section 29-l'roperty escheated to Government on failure of heirs--
Only when there is total absence of heirs~vailabi/ity of heirs under sub-
D section ( 1) or (2) of Section 15--Whether precludes escheat. 
One Smt. 'M' inherited from her husband certain agricultural lands. 
Some of the lands were under mortgage and in the possession of 
defendants 2 to 6. She died intestate after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
came into force. As there was no heir entitled to succeed to her property, 
E mutation was sanctioned in favour .of the State. The grandson of her 
brother claiming to be her legal heir filed a suit for possession of the 
property and for a declaration that he was entitled to redeem the 
mortgaged property from defendants 2 to 6:The suit was resisted by the 
First Defendant, viz., the State on the ground that the intestate had left no 
heir to succeed and the mutation effected in favour of the State was valid. 
F . Defendants 2 to 6 contended that the right to redeem the m_ortgage had 
extinguished, and they have. become the owners of the property as . they 
were in possession for more than siXty years. 
The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff Was not 
entitled to succeed to the property of the· deceased since the property was 
G inherited from her husband. As regards the mortgage, itWas left open to 
be decided later as agreed to by the parties. 
H 
Plaintiff preferred an appeal and the District Judge dismissed the 
same. On a second appeal preferred by him, ·the High Court decreed the 
458 
.,,., ... 
• 
.. • 
SI'ATEv. BALWANTSINGH 
459 
suit for possession even against defendants 2 to 6. The State as well as the A 
defendants 2 to 6 have preferred the present appeals by special leave. 
The appellant-State contended that the plaintiff-Respondent was not 
a qualified heir under the Hindu Succession Act and hence it waSi a case of 
failure of heirs resulting in the devolution of estate on the Government. 
The other appellants (Defendants 2 to 6) contended that the High Court. B 
ought not have decreed the suit against them since the 
plaintiff-Respondent's right to redeem the mortgage was not adjudged by 
--f 
the trial court and by agreement the question was expressly left open. 
Dismissing the appeal preferred by the State and allowing the C 
appeal of defendants 2 to 6, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The property is escheated to the Government when an 
intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property. The 
property shall devolve on the Government and the Government shall take 
the property .subject to all the obligations and liabilities of the property. It D 
is only in the event of the deceased leaving behind no heir to succeed, the 
State steps in to take the property. The State does not take the property as 
a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the Lord paramount of 
the whole soil of the country. [ 464 B,C) 
2. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall not operate in E 
favour of the State if there is any other heir of the intestate. Indeed, 
Section 29 itself indicates that there must be failure of heirs. 'Failure' of 
heirs means the total absence of heirs to the intestate. A female Hindu 
. being the full owner of the property becomes a fresh stock of descend. If 
she leaves behind any heir either under sub-section. (1) or under F 
sub-section (2) of Section 15, her property cannot be escheated. [ 464 E,FJ 
Htilsbury~s Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 17para1439; referred to. 
3.1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 15, intended only to change the order 
of succession specified urider sub-section (1) and not to eliminate the 
other classes of heirs. Section 15(2) came to be incorporated on the 
recommendations of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parlia-
ment~ The report of the Joint Committee which was accepted by Parlia-
ment indicates that this sub-section was intended to revise the order of 
succession among the heirs to a Hindu female and to prevent the proper-
ties. from passing into the hands to persons to whom justice would 
G 
H 
460 
SUPREME C

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