This article is written by Stuti Mehrotra. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in special leave petition in Smt. Dipo vs. Wassan Singh. It deals with ownership and inheritance of the deceased whose property is in dispute, which became the main concern of the court. The article delves into determining the legal heir of the deceased, to decide whether the property was ancestral or not and the different laws of inheritance in context to customary laws.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Law relating to intestate succession among Hindus is codified under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The act brought about changes in the Law of Succession among Hindus, granting women property rights that had been largely unknown for a long time. The property inherited by a Hindu from his two generations i.e., father’s father and father, is ancestral property. Property inherited from other relations is not ancestral property; it is separate property. The essential element of ancestral property is that if that person inheriting it has sons, grandsons, or great grandsons, they become joint owners with him.
This is a landmark case related to ancestral property rights under the Hindu Law. In this case, the Supreme Court of India reversed lower court decisions, ruling in favour of the plaintiff regarding property labelled as ancestral. It deals with ownership and inheritance of the deceased whose property was in dispute, which became the main concern of the court. The judges who passed the judgement were Hon’ble Justice Chinappa Reddy and Justice D.A. Desai.
Details of the case
- Name of the case: Smt. Dipo vs. Wassan Singh
- Citation: 1983 AIR 846, 1983 SCR (3) 20, 1983 (3) SCC 376
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1938 of 1970.
- Appellant: Smt. Dipo
- Respondent: Wassan Singh
- Date of Judgement: 5th May, 1983
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Chinappa Reddy and D.A. Desai
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Referred: Inheritance of Property under Hindu Law
Facts of the case
The parties involved in this case were the plaintiff, Smt. Dipo, and the defendants, Wassan Singh and others. Another party was Bua Singh, the deceased whose property was in dispute. Bua Singh, passed away in 1952, and his numerous properties became a point of contention in court regarding their ownership and inheritance. The petitioner, who claimed to be the sister of Bua Singh, asserted that she was the closest heir to her late brother. She initiated legal action to reclaim the property (not ancestral) that belonged to her deceased brother, Bua Singh.
Smt. Dipo, the plaintiff, claimed the land, but her claims were challenged by the respondents, who claimed to be paternal uncle’s sons on two grounds:
- The respondents questioned and disputed Smt. Dipo’s relationship with Bua Singh as a sister in the first part of their argument.
- The respondents also claimed that they were the preferred heirs according to local customary laws, even if Smt. Dipo was considered as Bua Singh’s sister, because the entire piece of land was family property belonging to Bua Singh.
The Trial Court determined that even if some of the disputed properties were not ancestral, the majority of them were when Bua Singh owned them. It was also ruled that Smt. Dipo was entitled to inherit only Bua Singh’s non-ancestral property, citing a custom that barred sisters from inheriting ancestral property in favour of collaterals.
The appellant here was dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s decision, therefore, Smt. Dipo filed an appeal with the District Judge in Amritsar, intending to present it in forma pauperis. However, the appeal was rejected by the District Court Judge because Smt. Dipo failed to present it personally as required by Order 33, Rule 3 of CPC. The defendants also filed an appeal, which was similarly rejected.
Smt. Dipo, the plaintiff, also appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, this second appeal was denied by the High Court on the grounds that it had lapsed as it was time-barred and there was a delay in submitting the required documents. The Trial Court’s decision was not submitted with the appeal’s application within the required time period. Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues involved
Whether the plaintiff, Smt. Dipo possesses any special rights to Bua Singh’s ancestral property or not?
Concept discussed in Smt. Dipo vs. Wassan Singh (1983)
Ancestral property under Hindu law
The property inherited by a Hindu from his two generations i.e., father’s father and father, is ancestral property. Property inherited from other relations is not ancestral property; it is separate property. The essential element of ancestral property is that if that person inheriting it has sons, grandsons, or great grandsons, they become joint owners with him.
Whereas, coparcenary refers to a type of property ownership where multiple people inherit the same property and each one of them owns an undivided, transferable interest in the property. Ancestral property is a type of coparcenary property.
Once a coparcenary comes into being, the interest of the deceased coparcener in the coparcenary property devolves through survivorship and not through succession. In other words, we can say that coparceners hold the property as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. Whereas, in ancestral property the interest in the property is transferred through succession. Upon the owner’s demise, the property equally devolves upon all children, irrespective of their birth order or gender.
Inheritance from parenteral property under Hindu law
Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father, is ancestral property. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the person inheriting such property acquire an interest in it by birth. Thus, the term ancestral property is confined to property descending to the father from his male ancestor in the male line, and it is only in that property that the sons (and now, the daughters) acquire an interest jointly with, and equal to that of, their father. Property inherited from other relatives would, therefore, not be ancestral property but separate property.
For example: If ‘X’ inherits property from his father’s father, it is ancestral property as regards his issues. If ‘X’ has no son or daughter when he inherits such property, he holds the property as the absolute owner thereof, and he can deal with the property in any manner he may choose to. If, however, such a person comes into existence subsequently, he/she becomes entitled to an interest in such property by the mere fact of his/her birth, and X cannot claim to hold the property as an absolute owner; nor can he deal with it as he likes.
Right to inherit the ancestral property
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which applies to anyone who is a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Jain by religion. According to this law, sons and daughters have equal rights to the ancestral property (daughters were given inheritance rights after the 2005 Amendment). Here, the ancestral property includes property from both paternal and maternal sides.
Another aspect of the Hindu law, known as the Hindu Undivided family law, which states that the property is deemed to be ancestral if it has been passed down through four generations of male lineage without any interruption.
Difference between ancestral and inherited property
| Basis | Ancestral property | Inherited Property |
| Definition | Any property or possession that is passed down from the male line of descent for at least four generations. | A type of property that is usually passed onto an individual through the process of succession |
| Process of succession | Passed from great-grandfather to grandfather to father to son, all on the male line of descent. | Passed from the owner to the successor usually after death, through a will or interstate. |
| Partition | Ancestral property shall stay undivided. If it is partitioned, the divided property loses its status as an ancestral property. | Inherited property can be partitioned. |
| Governing laws | The concept of ancestral property only exists in Hindu law, whose inheritance laws are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. | Transfer of inherited property is covered under the Hindu Succession Act for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Arya Samaj. Muslims follow the Islamic law of inheritance, which is mostly uncodified, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, covers the law of inheritance for Christians and Parsis. |
Arguments by the parties
The following arguments were made by the petitioner and the respondent to support their allegations:
Petitioner
Smt. Dipo, the petitioner, had filed a legal action seeking to reclaim ownership of the assets belonging to Bua Singh, her deceased brother who had passed away in 1952. Smt. Dipo argued that she had the right to inherit Bua Singh’s property as his closest heir. Her central contention was that Bua Singh was her brother, and she sought to establish this tie to prove her rightful heirship as his sister.
Furthermore, Smt. Dipo contended that according to the local customs, sisters were considered preferred heirs to non-ancestral property of the deceased over other relatives in the paternal line who were not direct descendants. It was argued that the disputed estates were not entirely ancestral. Since some of the estates were not hereditary, she felt she should be acknowledged as the preferred successor and so entitled to inherit those lands.
Respondent
Bua Singh’s paternal uncle and Ganda Singh’s sons, who were the respondents in this case challenged the petitioner’s claim of being Bua Singh’s sister and his closest heir. They disputed her right to inherit Bua Singh’s property. According to the defendants, under the local customary law, they were the rightful heirs to Bua Singh’s property.
They interpreted these customary laws to mean that collateral relatives like Bua Singh’s paternal uncle and Ganda Singh’s sons had the right to inherit the property of their ancestors, whereas sisters were not given preference in inheritance matters. It was also asserted by the respondents that all of the disputed properties were ancestral and belonged to Bua Singh.
They even contended that they were entitled to the deceased’s entire property through inheritance, rejecting the petitioner’s assertion that some of the properties were not ancestral.
Judgement in Smt. Dipo vs. Wassan Singh (1983)
Decision by the Trial Court
The Subordinate Judge of the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was the sister of the deceased Bua Singh. It was found that most of the suit properties were ancestral properties, in the hands of Bua Singh while a few were not ancestral. Therefore, it was held that according to the customs, the sister was excluded by the collateral in the case of ancestral property, while she was entitled to inherit non-ancestral property, a decree was passed in the favour of the plaintiff for a share of the part of the land.
Decision by the District Court, Amritsar
The plaintiff then further preferred an appeal as a forma pauperis to the District Judge of Amritsar, which was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not present the appeal in person as required by Order 33 Rule 3 of the CPC. The defendants also preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.
Decision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
After the dismissal of these, a second appeal was filed by the plaintiff in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This appeal was also dismissed stating that it was barred by limitation. It was stated that a copy of the Trial Court’s judgement was not filed along with the memorandum of second appeal. Though the memorandum of second appeal was filed within time, the copy of the judgement was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and it was on that ground that the second appeal was dismissed.
Decision by the Apex Court
The Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Reddy, O. Chinnappa, Desai, and D.A. JJ. recognised Smt. Dipo as the sister of the deceased. The Lower Court’s decision was deemed to be inappropriate. The significant delay in Lower Court’s decision showed hesitation to rule in favour of the appellant concerning the ancestral property.
The court’s viewpoint regarding the ancestral property was that the defendants were considered collateral heir, and the plaintiff had precedence over the defendants’ claims and was a rightful heir to the property. The judgments and decree of the Subordinate Judge, District Judge, and High Court were all overturned. The appeal filed by the appellant was granted, and the defendants were held responsible for paying the plaintiff’s costs, including court fees owed to the government for the suit, appeal, second appeal, and Supreme Court appeal.
Ratio decidendi
The rationale behind the present judgement was stated by the Apex Court that rejection of the second appeal by the High court was unreasonable. Since the matter was specific and the second appeal from the appellant’s side was filed in time without delay, the court considered it inappropriate to reject the appeal on similar minor grounds on which it was rejected by the High Court. The High Court should have allowed the second appeal and decided it on its merits, despite the Trial Court’s delay in producing the copy of the judgement in time .
Regarding the District Judge’s rejection of the appeal because it wasn’t submitted in person, the court concluded that since the District Judge had formally accepted the appeal, dismissing it after acceptance would be meaningless. A person acquiring property from his ancestors from three generations is required under Hindu family law to hold it in coparcenary with his three closest male descendants. Still, if the person has a son, grandson, great- grandson, or great-great grandson, he must hold the property entirely as his own.
A male representative acquires a share of ancestral property by birth. The males are born with an interest in it. Still, the property is treated as independent property in other connections, and if the coparcener dies without a son, the property passes to his heirs at law through succession.
Author’s analysis
This case is a notable decision by the Supreme Court of India concerning inheritance under Hindu law, especially the rights of female heirs. The decision clarified the application of statutory inheritance laws in cases where customary practices might conflict with the statutory provisions. The case reinforced the rights of a female heir in the property. The case also underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory laws over customary practices over matters of inheritance. This case highlighted the legal recognition and protection of the inheritance rights of the female heirs, ensuring that widows and other female family members receive their due share of the property.
Conclusion
Under Hindu Family law, when a son inherits the property from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather, it becomes part of a joint family property. This property is then collectively owned and managed by the son along with his descendants, which include his own son, his grandson, and his great-grandson. This type of collective ownership is referred to as a coparcener. In a coparcenary, all members have equal rights to the property, and it is passed down through the male lineage.
In the case, the court provided a detailed verdict passed clarifying the property rights in question. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, affirming their entitlement to the property. Additionally, the court allocated the legal expenses in accordance with this decision. The decision upholds the principle of property rights as understood within the legal framework and provides clear guidance for similar cases in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Which order provides for filing a suit as pauper?
Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for filing a suit as a pauper.
What is forma pauperis?
It is a latin term meaning ‘in the manner of a pauper’. A suit brought in by forma pauperis allows a poor person to bring a suit without incurring the costs of the suit. It is not a right, it is subject to the discretion of the court.
What resulted in the filing of the second appeal in the High Court?
The dismissal of appeal by the District Court resulted in filing of the second appeal by the plaintiff in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Is intestate law codified anywhere for the Hindus?
Yes, the intestate succession among Hindus is codified under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Act brought about changes in the Law of Succession among Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women’s property
References
- https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/sucession.pdf
- https://www.indianbarassociation.org/concepts-of-ancestral-property/
- https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9786.pdf
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
