This article is written by Shilpi. This article contains a detailed analysis of the findings and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. Teja Singh (2001). The article discusses the facts, arguments, laws involved and the judgement of the case. The article also provides an analysis of the judgement with respect to the succession rights of a female Hindu after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 

Table of Contents

Introduction

India is home to diverse religious groups where individuals follow a set of laws relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, inheritance, etc. In India, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the governing law for dealing with the rules of succession for Hindus. The noteworthy aspect of this Act is that it bifurcates the process of intestate succession between males and females. In females, the rule traces the origin of the property that the deceased female obtained prior to her death. 

The devolving of the property upon the death of a female who owned it during her lifetime has remained a point of contention across several cases in the Indian landscape. While the relatives on the father’s side make a claim to the property, the relatives on the husband’s side do not shy away from exercising this claim to assert their right to inherit the property after the passing away of the female. The Supreme Court, in Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs. vs. Teja Singh (Dead) by LRs. (2001), however, shone a torch on how a property devolves upon the heirs of the father when a female dies without any offspring and is seen to inherit the property during her lifetime from her mother or father. 

Download Now

Details of the case

The following are the fundamental details of the case:

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Appellants: Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs.

Respondents: Teja Singh (Dead) by LRs.

Case Number: Appeal (civil) 3663 of 1984

Neutral Citation: (2002) 1 SCC 210

Bench: Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice U.C. Banerjee

Date of decision: 06.11.2001

Relevant Act: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Relevant Sections: Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Facts of the case 

One Kehar Singh (A) was the owner of a land in Pakistan. He died before the partition of India and Pakistan. After his death, his widow Smt. Kirpo (B) and his two daughters Smt. Santi (D1) and Smt. Indro (D2) migrated to India. In place of the property owned by ‘A’, his widow, B was allotted some portion of land in India. After the death of B, D1 and D2 inherited the property. D1 died without any heir. D2 inherited the property of D1 after her death as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). D2 entered into an agreement to sell the same property to Bhagat Ram (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”). D2 filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed in the favour of Bhagat Ram. 

Teja Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) is the brother of the husband of the deceased D1. The respondent filed a suit alleging that after the death of D1, her property devolved in favour of the respondent according to Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent. The appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed by the court.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court, which was also subsequently dismissed. However, on appeal before the Supreme Court, the court held that D1 inherited the property from her mother. Therefore, Section 15(2)(a) of the Act will be relevant in the present circumstances, and hence, the respondent has no right to the property left by the deceased D1. The Apex Court decided that the property left behind by the deceased D1 will devolve on her sister ‘D2’. 

Teja Singh was the only respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court. After the service of the notice, he failed to appear before the Supreme Court and did not defend his case. After his death, no steps were taken to bring his legal heirs on record. Subsequently, Bhagat Ram also died and his legal heirs were brought on record to appeal. During the hearing of the appeal, it was not brought before the notice of the court that Teja Singh had passed away. After the disposal of the appeal, the legal heirs of Teja Singh filed an appeal to get impleaded in the appeal for an opportunity of a hearing. This plea of the legal heirs of Teja Singh was accepted by the Supreme Court, which permitted the counsel for the newly added respondents to present their submissions and arguments.

Laws involved in Bhagat Ram vs. Teja Singh (2001) 

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 14 of the Act states that when a female Hindu owns a property during her lifetime, it is to be treated as her absolute property.  

  1. The sub-section (1) of Section 14 states that when a female Hindu possesses a property, irrespective of whether that property was acquired by her after the commencement of this Act or prior to the enactment of this Act, she will be regarded as the full owner of that property instead of a limited owner. 
  2. The sub-section (2) of Section 14 states that the rule laid out in sub-section (1) of Section 14 will not be applicable where the Hindu female acquires property in the form of a gift or as per the will or any other instrument. Moreover, the preceding rule given in sub-section (1) will not be further applicable where the Hindu female acquires property under a decree or order issued by the civil court or where the property is given to her under an award where the terms of decree, instrument, will, order, award or gift are such that they assign a restricted estate in the concerned property. 

The objective behind enacting the Act was to order a balance between the property rights of male and female Hindus. Section 14 of the Act converted the limited ownership held by a female Hindu to absolute ownership, empowering her to dispose of the property as per her wishes. Section 15 of the Act is the first statutory enactment which provides for succession of the property of an intestate female Hindu. The provisions of Section 15 are not applicable to the property held by a female Hindu as a limited owner under Section 14(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Seth Badri Prasad vs. Smt. Kanso Devi (1969) held that the word ‘observed’ used in Section 14(1) has to be interpreted in the widest possible manner. This should be done to include the nature of the explanation attached to Section 14 of the Act.

The Supreme Court in the case of Bai Vajia (Dead) by LRs. vs. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors. (1979) observed that the provisions of the Act were enacted to ensure the equality of sexes and to elevate women from a subservient position in the economic field. The Act endowed the female Hindus to enjoy and dispose of their property as per their desires. This step removed the limitations imposed upon female Hindus by a male-dominated society.  

In the case of Debabrata Mondal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2007), a female Hindu was granted a heritable lease for a term of 999 years. She married a widower who had sons in his prior marriage. The female Hindu died issueless in 2002. During her lifetime, she made an express representation to the government that her stepsons should not get the land after her death. The Calcutta High Court held that despite her express representation, her stepsons are the heirs to the female Hindu and will fall under the category of “heirs of the husband”. 

The Supreme Court in the case of V. Tulasamma & Ors. vs. V. Shesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. (1977) held that Section 14(2) is in the nature of an exception to Section 14(1) and, hence, should be construed strictly in order to ensure that the reformative flow of Section 14(1) may have only a few obstructions.  

In the case of Jagannathan Pillai vs. K. Pillai & Ors. (1987), the Supreme Court observed that Section 14(1) of the Act does not support the idea that a Hindu female should be in actual physical or in constructive possession of any property on the date of the coming into operation of the Act. Once it is proved that she was in possession of the property at the time when the requisition regarding the title of property arises, in the eyes of the law, the property will be held by her as “full owner” and not as limited owner.

In order to enlarge the ambit of Section 14, the legislature provided an Explanation to the section. The Explanation makes it clear that Section 14 encompasses every kind of acquisition of property. It includes the acquisition of property by inheritance or partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift, among other instruments. However, a widow who remarried before the commencement of the Act will not get the benefit of Section 14(1) by virtue of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856. 

In order to attract Section 14(1) of the Act, the female Hindu must acquire the property as an heir. When a female Hindu acquires a property as an heir, she acquires it absolutely. However, while acquiring a property through a gift or other transaction, if any restrictions have been placed on her right, these restrictions will have effect in the view of Section 14(2) of the Act. 

Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 15 of the Act talks about the general rules of succession that apply to females who are Hindus.

  1. The sub-section (1) of Section 15 states that when a female Hindu dies without making a valid will or without giving instructions about who will be receiving her properties, her properties shall be passed as per the rules that are stated in Section 16 of the present Act.
  1. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) states that the property of the deceased female Hindu will be given primarily to her daughters or sons. The sons and daughters are inclusive of the offspring of any of her children that are already dead, or she outlived. Moreover, her property will also be passed on to her husband in addition to the members discussed before.
  2. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) states that people second in line to receive the property of a dead female Hindu will be heirs of her spouse, meaning the people who are legally entitled to receive the property of her husband. 
  3. Sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) states that people third in line to receive the property of a dead female Hindu will be her parents, meaning her father and mother.
  4. Sub-clause (d) of sub-section (1) states that people fourth in line to receive the property of a dead female Hindu will be heirs of her father, meaning people who are legally entitled to receive the property of her father.
  5. Sub-clause (e) of sub-section (1) states that lastly, people fifth in line to receive the property of a dead female Hindu will be heirs of her mother, meaning people who are legally entitled to receive the property of her mother.

(2) The sub-section (2) of Section 15 states that in spite of what is laid out in sub-section (1) of Section 15, the following will be applicable

  1. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) states that in the case of property that the dead female Hindu had inherited from her father or mother where the dead female Hindu does not have any living son or daughter or does not have offspring from the son or daughter who died during her lifetime, the said property will not pass in the manner that has been specified in sub-section (1) but shall pass upon the heirs of the father meaning people who are legally entitled to receive the property of her father.
  2. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) states that in the case of property that the dead female Hindu had inherited from her husband or her husband’s father, where the dead female Hindu does not have any living son or daughter or does not have offsprings from the son or daughter who died during her lifetime, the said property will not pass in the manner that has been specified in sub-section (1) but shall pass upon the heirs of the husband meaning people who are legally entitled to receive the property of her husband.

In the case of State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh & Ors. (1991), a Hindu female inherited property from her husband. She died intestate without any issue. Also, there was no heir from the side of her husband. The grandson of the Hindu female claimed to inherit the property. The state defended the claim of the grandson. The Supreme Court held that Section 15(2)(b) of the Act provides that the property of an intestate female Hindu shall not devolve upon the heirs as provided under Section 15(1) in the specified order but lent upon the heirs of the husband. This, however, does not eliminate the other heirs, as mentioned under Section 15(1), from inheritance altogether. 

The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors. (2006) held that when a female inherits a property as an heir, she absolutely inherits it. When she gets possession of any property by virtue of gift or other transactions and any restriction is placed on her right, those restrictions will have effect as per Section 14(2) of the Act.

In the case of Om Prakash & Ors. vs. Radhacharan & Ors. (2009), the Supreme Court held that in the case of self-acquired property of a female Hindu, Section 15(1) would apply and not Section 15(2). A female Hindu has the option to dispose of her property as per a will. In case she dies intestate, the rules of succession provided by the Act will apply.

In order to regulate the succession of estates of an intestate female Hindu, different and separate rules have been provided under the Act. This separation is based on the source of the acquisition of the property by the intestate female Hindu. If a female Hindu dies without any relation, the property devolves upon the state as an heir, subject to all the obligations and liabilities of the intestate. 

Issues raised  

For adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the following issues came to be decided by the Apex Court:

  • Who will inherit the property of an intestate female Hindu without any issue which has been inherited by the deceased female Hindu from her mother before the enactment of the Act?
  • After a female Hindu’s limited rights convert to absolute ownership over the property, does it alter the rules of succession as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act?

Arguments of the parties  

Appellant 

The appellant made the following contentions before the Apex Court of India:

  • The appellant contended that ‘D1’ inherited the property from her mother. Therefore, subsequent to her death, the said property will devolve to her sister ‘D2’ as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Act. 

Respondent  

The respondent made the following contention before the Supreme Court of India:

  • The respondent contended that deceased ‘D1’ acquired the property from her mother on 25.12.1951, and during that period, the deceased ‘D1’ only had a limited right over the property. However, according to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, the deceased ‘D1’ became the full owner of the property. Therefore, on her death, the property held by her will devolve upon the legal heirs as per the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act. 
  • The respondent further contended that prior to the Act, deceased ‘D1’ had only a limited right, but for Section 14(1) of the Act, the property would have reverted to the reversioners, and that limited right converted into a full right. Therefore, the said property shall be treated as the property of the deceased ‘D1’. 
  • The respondent contended that Section 15 of the Act has only prospective operation. Therefore, “any property inherited by a female Hindu” as provided under Section 15(2)(a) of the Act is to be construed as property inherited by a female Hindu after the commencement of the Act. 

Relevant judgements referred in Bhagat Ram vs. Teja Singh (2001)

Judgments referred to in the case are discussed as follows:

The matter in Baajya vs. Smt. Gopikabai and Anr. (1978) was a case relating to land in dispute. The original owner of the contested land was G, the offspring of D. Before the dispute could be settled in 1918, G passed away. Upon his death, the land devolved onto the son of G, P. However, eighteen years later, P passed away, leaving a widow, S, who became the owner of the disputed land. Upon the death of S on November 6, 1956, a dispute arose between the parties where the plaintiff stated that since she was the daughter of T, who was the sibling of P, the last male holder of the property, she was the heir as per the section 15 read in connection with Section 2(II)(4)(iv) schedule referred in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant argued that since they followed the Mitakshara law, they were the sapindas of the last male holder of the property, P. Considering the arguments, the Supreme Court pronounced that clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 15 will be applicable in this case as S did not bear any child and died intestate. According to the rule, T’s daughter would be the preferential heir to the property.

In the matter State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and others (1991), the Supreme Court decided on a similar matter. A female Hindu acquired the property from her spouse before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, she passed away shortly after the passing of the Act. Subsequent to her death, in the absence of any heirs, the Revenue authorities proceeded to include the name of the state in the property record as the new owner of the property. Moreover, the husband’s side did not have any heir who could claim ownership of the property. However, the plaintiff stated that since he was the grandson of the brother of the deceased female Hindu, he had the entitlement to succeed to the property. The Apex Court termed the decision of the High Court faulty, where the latter stated that once the female Hindu acquires property, it becomes her absolute property in view of Section 14 and shall be passed on to her heirs as per Section 15(1). The Apex Court pronounced that when a female Hindu acquires the property, she becomes the absolute owner of the property, and a new stock of descent starts from there. In this instance, she leaves any heir who can succeed to the property either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 15. The state cannot acquire the property of the said person.  

In Amar Kaur vs. Smt. Raman Kumari and others (1984), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana adopted a contradictory position in relation to the matter in consideration. A spouse of a dead male Hindu acquired the property in 1956. Since the spouse had two living daughters at the time of inheriting the property in question, she gifted the entire property to both of them. The husband of Daughter D1 died before her, and in 1972, D1 died without any offspring. The property of D1 was mutated in the favour of another daughter, D2. However, when the husband of D1 died before D1, he had another wife and son living at the time. Another son of D1’s husband dies while leaving behind his widow and son. The widow and son of D1’s husband’s other son claimed right over the property that was mutated in favour of D2 upon D1’s death. The High Court held that since the estate that D1 held as per Section 14(1) of the Act cannot be said to have devolved on her as per inheritance from her father or mother, Section 15(2) would not apply in this matter and the property of D1 will devolve upon widow and children of another son of D1’s husband. 

However, the bench in Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs. vs. Teja Singh (Dead) by LRs. (2001) termed the decision of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to be incorrect and stated that when a female Hindu who has limited ownership becomes a full owner as per Section 14(1) of the Act, the rules of succession that are contained in sub-section 2 of Section 15 will be applicable. 

Judgement in Bhagat Ram vs. Teja Singh (2001)

The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary for the inheritance of the property by ‘D1’ to have been after the commencement of the Act. The intention of the Legislature behind the enactment of the Act is clear that if the property inherited by the deceased female belonged to her parents, then the property will devolve to the legal heirs of the father subsequent to the death of the female. Similarly, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or her father-in-law shall devolve to the legal heirs of her husband. The court observed that it is the source of the inherited property which determines the devolution of the said property. 

The Apex Court remarked that the fact that prior to the enactment of the Act, a female Hindu had a limited right and later acquired full inheritance will not alter the rules of succession as prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act. Even when the limited ownership of a female Hindu converts to absolute ownership as per Section 14(1) of the Act, Section 15(2) will be applicable in those circumstances.

The Supreme Court observed that the source of the inherited property is always crucial, and it would govern the inheritance of the property. If this principle is not followed, then individuals not even remotely related to the person who originally held the property would be entitled to inherit the said property. This would defeat the purpose behind the enactment of Section 15(2), which gives a special sequence of succession.

The Supreme Court held that in the present scenario, Section 15(2) is the appropriate provision to apply in the succession of the property left by deceased ‘D1’. 

Critical analysis of the case 

The limitation on the power of a female Hindu to dispose of her property has been abolished by the enactment of Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 has enlarged the limited right of a female Hindu over an estate to absolute ownership. Prior to the enactment of the Act, female Hindus were subject to certain limitations regarding the disposal of the estates they owned. Subsequent to absolute ownership, a female Hindu is entitled to dispose of her property as per her preferences. The operation of Section 14 is retrospective as well as prospective in nature. 

As per the author, the approach taken by the Supreme Court in this case to decide the inheritance of a property is in concurrence with the intention behind the enactment of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasised on the principle that the property inherited by an intestate female Hindu from her parents should pass to the heirs of her parents and the property inherited by her from her husband should subsequently devolve to the heirs of the husband. This will ensure that the succession of a property of an intestate female Hindu follows a specific sequence in order to prevent any unrelated individuals from inheriting her property.  

The author opines that the judgments referred to by the Apex Court while deciding the case provide a nuanced comprehension of the rules governing the devolution of property of an intestate Hindu female. The cases decided by the Supreme Court emphasise the source of inherited property. It provides that the property devolves to the familial line from which it originated. This principle prevents any unrelated individual from claiming his rights to the property. By following this principle, the Court ensured that there is consistency and fairness in inheritance matters.

The approach taken by the Court that the transformation of limited ownership to absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Act is consequential as it empowers a female Hindu with absolute rights over her property is noteworthy. The ruling of the Supreme Court maintains a balance and concurrency between the decision and the legislative intent of the Parliament behind enacting the Act. The object of the Act is to provide an equitable framework for the succession of property, primarily focusing on the rights of a Hindu female. By adhering to the principles of the Act, the Court ensured that the devolution of the property in the present case is in consonance with the original goals of the Act. 

The decision of the Supreme Court that the devolution of a property inherited by a female Hindu depends upon the source of the inheritance is in line with Section 15(2) of the Act. Section 15(2) will continue to be the governing factor in deciding the devolution of property of an intestate female Hindu, even if her limited ownership has been converted to absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act. 

The author observes that the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Act by the Supreme Court reinforces that a consistent approach should be taken in succession of a property left behind by an intestate Hindu female. The primary focus on the source of the inherited property will ensure that a structured sequence of succession should take place. This interpretation of the Court will protect the rights of those individuals who are entitled to claim the property rather than arbitrary devolution of property.   

Conclusion

The Apex Court has adopted a beneficial approach in determining that the source from which a female Hindu inherits the property plays a crucial role in dictating the rightful heirs in any given situation. If the Apex Court had failed to elucidate the legal position about the relevant provisions, certain individuals with no familial connection to the intestate female Hindu could have potentially inherited the property. This clarification ensures that the devolution of a property should follow a sequence of succession. This would entirely defeat the legislative intent behind the inclusion of sub-section 2 of Section 15, which lays down a distinctive pattern to be followed for succession in matters of Hindu females dying intestate without leaving any offspring.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the objective behind the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

The Hindu Succession Act, of 1956 was enacted to amend and codify the laws regulating intestate succession among Hindus. 

What is the meaning of intestate succession?

When a male or female dies without leaving a valid will or instructions that determine how the assets of the deceased will be allocated, the process that is followed as per the laws of the religion of the deceased is known as intestate succession.

What is the concept behind the enactment of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Section 14 of the Act encompasses the idea that a female Hindu is the complete owner and has absolute rights over a property that has been acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act.

What kinds of properties come under the purview of Section 14 of the Act?

Under Section 14, ‘property’ includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by virtue of inheritance, partition, in lieu of maintenance, gift, purchase, or any other lawful means.

Does Section 14 retrospectively apply to properties acquired by a female Hindu before the enactment of the Act?

Yes, Section 14 retrospectively applies to properties acquired by a female Hindu before the enactment of the Act.

Does Section 14 prescribe any exception regarding absolute ownership of a female Hindu over the property acquired by her?

Yes, Section 14(2) provides for the exception of the rule of absolute ownership. It provides that if any property is acquired by a female Hindu by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument which prescribes a restricted estate, the terms of the instrument will prevail.

What is the essence of Section 15 of the Act?

Section 15 of the Act provides for the rules of succession of an intestate female Hindu. It prescribes the order of heirs who will inherit the property of an intestate female Hindu.

How will the property of an interstate female Hindu will be divided if she dies without any issue?

In the absence of any issue, the property of an intestate female Hindu will devolve to her husband. However, if her husband is not any more, then the property will be inherited by the heirs of the husband. 

Who will inherit the property of an intestate female Hindu if she has neither any issue, husband, nor any heir of her husband?

In the absence of any issue, the husband and the heirs of the husband, the property of an intestate female Hindu, will be inherited by her mother and father. In the absence of her mother and father, to the heirs of the father. If there are no heirs of her father, then the property will devolve to the heirs of her mother. 

Who falls under the primary heirs of an intestate female Hindu under Section 15 of the Act?

Sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband are the primary heirs of an intestate female Hindu under Section 15 of the Act.

What is the correlation between Sections 14 and 15 of the Act?

Section 14 of the Act bestows a female Hindu with absolute ownership over a property inherited by her. Section 15 of the Act provides for an order of inheritance of the same property by the heirs of an intestate female Hindu. Simultaneously, both Sections provide for ownership and the inheritance of the estate of an intestate female Hindu.

Which religions are governed by the operation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act?

The Act is applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew. 

Is a female Hindu entitled to dispose of her property through a will without following the order of inheritance provided under Section 15 of the Act?

Section 15 of the Act provides for the rule of succession in the case of a female Hindu who dies intestate. Hence, a female Hindu is entitled to dispose of her property through a will without following the order of inheritance provided under Section 15 of the Act.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here