V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR versus BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 08-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR 
A 
v. 
BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 15(2) (a) & 15(1)-Female Hindu, 
who had acquired suit property from her mother side by virtue of a compromise 
decree, died intestate and issueiess-Rightful heir to the suit property-Held; C 
Would be heirs of her father and not heirs of her husband. 
'R', a female Hindu acquired properties of her maternal 
grandmother by virtue of a compromise decree passed in a suit. On 'R' 
dying issueless and intestate, a suit was filed in the Court of Subordinate 
Judge for declaration tliat in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Hindu D 
Succession Act, 1956 the said properties devolved upon the heirs of R's 
father, i.e. appellant an<i respondents 2-9 and 23. The suit was dismissed. 
Appeal before High Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 15 propounds a definite and uniform scheme E 
of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after 
the commencement of the Act. This section groups the heirs of a .'.'emale 
intestate into five categories described as Entries (a) to (e) and specified 
in sub-section (1).-Two exceptions both of the same nature are engrafted 
by sub-section (2) on the otherwise uniform order of succession prescribed 
by sub-section (1). (376-D-E] 
F 
1.2. The two exceptions are that if the female dies without leaving 
any issue, then (1) in respect of property inherited by her from her father 
or mother, that property will devolve not according to the order laiJ down · 
in the five Entries (a) to (e), but upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in 
respect of property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law it G 
will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five Entries (a) 
to (e) of subsection (1) but upon the heirs of the husband. (376-G-F] 
1.3. The two exceptions mentioned above are confined to property 
'inherited' from the father, mother, husband and father-in-law of the 
371 
H 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A female Hindu and do not affect property acquired by her by gift or by 
device under a Will of any of them. The present Section 15 has to be read 
in conjunction with Section 16 which evolves a new and uniform order of 
succession to her property and regulates the manner of its distribution. 
In other words, the order of succession in case of property inherited by 
B her from her father or mother, its operation is confined to the case of dying 
without leaving a son, a daughter or children of any pre-deceased son or 
daughter. [376-F-G] 
2.1. 'R' died intestate without leaving any son or daughter or 
children of predeceased son or daughter. The contention that 'R' .got the 
C suit property because .of the compromise decree and, .therefore, the 
property is not inherited by .her from her fathe.r or mother is without any 
substance. She was entitled to inherit the property of her maternal 
grandmother as her mother had expired. As some dispute was raised by 
the other heirs, a suit was filed. In that suit, rights of 'R' were recognized 
and compromise decree was passed in her favour. Result is - she got the 
D property as daughter of her mother. That means, she got the suit property 
not from her husband or father-in-law, but from her mother side. 
[377-C, D-E] 
E 
Ayi Ammal v. Subtamania Asari and Anr., AIR (1996) Madras 369, 
referred to. 
2.2. The case put forward by the first respondent and other 
contesting respondents that 'R' inherited the suit property not from her 
mother but also from her grand-mother and great grand-mother, and, 
therefore, Section 15 (1) of the Act would only apply, cannot at all be 
F countenanced. 'R' acquired her rights by virtue of compromise which is 
a reiteration and a declaration of her pro-existing right. Therefore, on the 
death of 'R' who died intestate and issueless, the suit property devolved 
upon the heirs of the father in view of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act. 
[379-A-B] 
G 
Venugopala Pillai v. T. Ammal, AIR (1979) Madras 124, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6626 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.88 of the Madras High Court 
H in L.P.A. No. 32 of 1983. 
V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR v. BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 3 73 
K. Ram Kumar and B. Sridhar Reddy, for the Appellant. 
A 
A.T.M. Sampath, V. Balaji and 

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