| Citation | AIR 2002 SC 1 |
| Date of Judgement | 6th November, 2001 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal number 3663 of 1984 |
| Appellant | Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. |
| Respondent | Teja Singh (Dead) by Lrs. |
| Bench | Justice U.C. Banarjee & K.G. Balakrishnan |
| Referred | Section 15(2)(a), (b) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
-The case centres around a plot of property in the Antowali village that was once Kehar Singh’s. It is significant to remember that this territory was located in what is now Pakistan.
-The land’s owner, Kehar Singh, passed away before India was partitioned.
-Following the Partition, Kehar Singh’s widow, Smt. Kirpo, and their two daughters, Smt. Santi and Smt. Indro immigrated to India.
-On December 25, 1951, Smt. Kirpo, Kehar Singh’s widow, passed away. Her two children, Smt. Santi and Smt. Indro became her legal heir.
-One of Kehar Singh’s daughters, Smt. Santi passed away in 1960. After she passed away, her surviving sister, Smt. Indro, received her belongings, including her portion of the land.
-On March 12, 1963, Bhagat Ram, the initial appellant in the case, signed a contract with Smt. Intro.
-Bhagat Ram sued for specific performance after the agreement was made in an attempt to uphold its terms and conditions. The court ruled in Bhagat Ram’s favour in this case.
-When Smt. Santi passed away in 1960, Teja Singh, the original respondent in the appeal, claimed that he should inherit the land in dispute. Teja Singh asserted this right based on a particular clause of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.
-The Trial Court passed the judgment in Teja Singh’s favour because it recognized his right to the property.
-Bhagat Ram filed an appeal with the High Court because he was dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s judgment. But the appeals against the Trial Court’s judgment were rejected. The High Court upheld the judgment in the favour of Teja Singh as well.
-Following that, Bhagat Ram filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India, challenging the judgments of the lower courts and asserting his claim to the land.
ISSUE
The primary issue in the case of “Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. v. Teja Singh (Dead) By Lrs.” was to determine whether section 15(2)(a) or 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ought be applicable to the property that Smt. Santi acquired from her mother, Smt. Kirpo
ARGUMENTS
Bhagat Ram claimed that Smt. Santi was entitled to the land since Smt. Kirpo, who had passed away on December 25, 1951, had left it to her. Bhagat Ram argued that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, transformed Smt. Santi’s limited ownership of the property, which she had before to the Hindu Succession Act, into full ownership. This clause effectively granted a female Hindu full ownership rights over the land she inherited from her parents. Bhagat Ram also contended that the Hindu Succession Act’s Section 15 should be applied retrospectively, which would mean that it should apply to any property that a female Hindu inherited, even if that inheritance took place before the Act’s inception. He specifically argued that because the case included property inherited from the father or mother, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 should apply. Bhagat Ram stressed that Smt. Kirpo, Smt. Santi’s mother was the source of inheritance.
The legal heirs of Teja Singh contended that paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act should apply to the property that Smt. Santi inherited. They contended that the application of Section 15(2)(b) following the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act should not be impacted by Smt. Santi’s restricted ownership of the land prior to the Act’s enactment. This argument holds that even if Smt. Santi’s rights were restricted before the Act, the Act transformed the nature of those rights to full ownership, hence Section 15(2)(b) should apply.
In brief, the primary dispute was whether clause (a) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with property inherited from the father or mother, as argued by Bhagat Ram, or clause (b), which deals with property inherited from the husband or father-in-law, as argued by Teja Singh’s legal heirs, should apply to determine the inheritance of the property. The parties disagreed on how the Act should be applied retroactively and how the transition from limited rights to full ownership would affect the implementation of Section 15(2)(b).
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ruled its In its decision in favour of the petitioner, Bhagat Ram. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of Smt. Santi’s source of inheritance of the property. The property belonged to Smt. Santi’s mother, Smt. Kirpo. The court noted that Smt. Santi’s restricted ownership of the property before the Hindu Succession Act’s passage was transformed into full ownership as a result of Section 14(1) of the Act, which grants a female Hindu full ownership rights over property inherited from her parents. The court affirmed that the source of inheritance was crucial in determining the applicable rule of succession. The disputed land had been given to Smt. Santi by her mother, Smt. Kirpo.
The court rejected the claim that the application of Section 15(2)(b) should be affected by Smt. Santi’s restricted right prior to the passage of the Hindu Succession Act. The court determined that clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act should apply to the property that Smt. Santi inherited. This clause addressed inherited assets from the father or mother. The land was therefore thought to have passed to Smt. Indro, Smt. Santi’s sister. The court saw no justification for deviating from its earlier decision, made in favor of Smt. Indro’s claim to the land in an order dated March 31, 1999.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling established that Smt. Indro, not Teja Singh or his legitimate successors, would receive the property bequeathed by Smt. Santi in accordance with the terms of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court upheld the earlier order from March 31, 1999, basing its conclusion on its reading of the Act and the source of inheritance.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by G Parinitha of St. Joseph’s College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhya
