- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Murlidhar Deonath Samel v. Sadashiv Deonath Samel And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition seeks revocation of the probate granted on 19 May 1981 in respect of the estate of Satyabamabai Deonath Samel. Satyabamabai executed a Will on 23 April 1971 and died on 10 May 1975. On 18 June 1977 her son Sadashiv filed Petition No. 623 of 1977 for probate; probate was granted on 19 May 1981. The present petitioner (a step‑son) subsequently filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 1982 seeking revocation of that probate.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, a step‑son, is an heir of Satyabamabai entitled to be cited and to challenge the Will/probate.
- Whether a step‑son falls within the meaning of “sons” under clause (a) of sub‑section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thereby affecting his locus standi to challenge the probate.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner claimed to be an heir of the deceased (a step‑son) and argued that citations should have been issued to him.
- The petitioner maintained he had a right to challenge the Will and the grant of probate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh, AIR 1987 SC 1616 | "A step‑son of a female dying intestate is not entitled to claim share in the property simultaneously with her son as the word 'sons' does not include 'step‑sons'." | The court applied this principle to hold that the petitioner (a step‑son) is excluded by the deceased's sons and therefore has no locus standi to challenge the probate; Misc. Petition No. 39 of 1982 was dismissed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the petitioner's asserted status under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, noting the petitioner would fall under item (b) of sub‑section (1) of Section 15 but is excluded when the deceased left sons under clause (a) of sub‑section (1). The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh which held that "sons" does not include "step‑sons" for a female dying intestate. Applying that authority to the facts—Satyabamabai having left sons including Sadashiv (the probate applicant)—the court concluded the petitioner is not an heir and lacks locus standi to impugn the probate.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 1982 and made no order as to costs. The direct consequence is that the petitioner, being a step‑son, was held to have no locus standi to challenge the grant of probate; the decision applied existing Supreme Court precedent and did not establish a new legal principle.
1. This petition is for revocation of the probate granted on 19th May, 1981. This concerns the estate of Satyabamabai Deonath Samel. She had made a Will on 23rd April, 1971. She died on 10th May, 1975. On 18th June, 1977 her son (Sadashiv) filed Petition No. 623 of 1977 for obtaining probate. On 19th May, 1981 the probate was granted. Thereafter the present petition has been filed for the relief as stated above.
2. The present petitioner claims to be an heir of the deceased (Satyabamabai) and on that basis he claims that citations should have been issued to him and that he had a right to challenge the Will. The present petitioner is a step-son of the said Satyabamabai. In Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 he would come under item (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15. However, he would be excluded by the sons of Satyabamabai falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act. Since Satyabamabai left the sons including Sadashiv, the petitioner in Petition No. 623 of 1977, the present petitioner cannot be said to be an heir of Satyabamabai. The question whether a step-son falls within the meaning of ‘son’ within clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh, AIR 1987 SC 1616. The Supreme Court has held that a step-son of a female dying intestate is not entitled to claim share in the property simultaneously with her son as the word “sons” does not include “step-sons”. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to take out the present petition.
3. Hence, Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 1982 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
Alert