Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunschalathammal And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(From Madras High Court).,Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1967, decided on February 20, 1970.

Disposition

dismissed

Judges

Justice K.S. Hegde
Justice J.C. Shah
Justice A.N. Grover

Acts

Section 8 of the Act
Section 16(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Class II, Item IV of the Schedule to the Act
Section 6 of the Act
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act
Section 15, Sub-section (1), Section 16, Rule 3 of the Act — (1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Arumugam had three sons—Thanu, Shanmugam and Sankaran—and a daughter, Ramalakshmi. Shanmugam died in 1942, leaving his estate to his minor daughter, Chidambarathammal, who later obtained an absolute interest in that estate by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Chidambarathammal died intestate in February 1957, unmarried and still a minor.

Following her death, Arunachalathammal (a daughter of Ramalakshmi) filed a suit in the District Munsiff’s Court seeking partition and separate possession of a one-twenty-fourth share in Chidambarathammal’s estate. The suit was resisted by the sons of Thanu and Sankaran. The trial court decreed in favour of Arunachalathammal, and the High Court of Madras affirmed that decree on second appeal. The present judgment resolves the further appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, heirs listed within Item IV of Class II of the Schedule succeed simultaneously or in an order of priority.
Whether Arunachalathammal, as a sister’s daughter of the propositus’s father, is entitled to inherit a share of the estate of Chidambarathammal.
Whether, by a legal fiction under Section 16, Rule 3, the estate should be treated as coparcenary property so that Section 6 of the Act governs its devolution.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Arunachalathammal is not entitled to inherit under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act because heirs in Item IV of Class II must take sequentially—mother’s son before sister’s son, and so on—thereby excluding heirs appearing later in the item.
Even if heirs in Item IV are considered, the estate retains the character it had when Shanmugam died; consequently it should be treated as coparcenary property, invoking Section 6 of the Act to determine succession.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Satya Charan Dutta v. Urmilla Sundari Desai, Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1966 (decided 9 September 1969)	Heirs listed within the same item of Class II of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act inherit simultaneously; earlier sub-entries do not exclude later ones.	The Court followed its prior ruling to hold that all heirs in Item IV of Class II inherit concurrently, thereby allowing the sister’s daughter (Arunachalathammal) to share equally with the descendants of Shanmugam’s brothers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified that, upon the intestate death of Chidambarathammal, her heirs fall under Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act—“heirs of the father.” Rule 3 of Section 16 directs that succession among such heirs be determined as if the property had been that of her father, Shanmugam, who died intestate immediately after her.

Applying Section 8 and the Schedule, the Court located the relevant heirs in Class II, Item IV (mother’s son, sister’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter). Relying on its own precedent in Satya Charan Dutta, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the sequence within Item IV creates successive priority. Instead, all heirs enumerated in the item inherit simultaneously, resulting in equal division between the descendants of Shanmugam’s brothers and his sister, Ramalakshmi.

Regarding the alternative contention, the Court held that Rule 3 merely identifies the class of heirs; it does not transform the property back into coparcenary property nor invoke Section 6. Section 6 applies only where the deceased held an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property at the time of death, which was not the case here because the property had already been received by Shanmugam on partition. Consequently, the argument that the estate should be governed by Section 6 was dismissed as unfounded.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. No order as to costs.

The decision affirms the concurrent inheritance rule for heirs within the same item of Class II under the Hindu Succession Act, reinforcing the precedent set in Satya Charan Dutta. It also clarifies that Section 6 does not apply to property already separated on partition, limiting attempts to re-characterize such assets as coparcenary for succession purposes.

Show full summary ...

Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunschalathammal And Others

J.C Shah, J.— One Arumugam had three sons, — Thanu, Shanmugam and Sankaran, and a daughter Ramalakshmi. Shanmugam died in 1942 and his estate devolved upon his daughter Chidambarathammal. By virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she acquired, when that Act was brought into force an absolute interest in the ‘estate inherited by her from Shanmugam. Chidambarathammal died in February, 1957, when she was a minor and unmarried. Arunachalathammal, one of the daughters of Ramalakshmi Ammal, sister of Shanmugam, commenced an action in the Court of the District Munsiff for partition and separate possession other 1/24th share out of the estate of Chidambarathammal. The claim was resisted by the sons of Thanu and Sankaran — brothers of Shanmugam. The trial court decreed the claim and that decree was confirmed in second appeal to the High Court of Madras.

2. In this appeal Mr Chagla, for the appellant, contends that Aruna-chalathammal was under the Hindu Succession Act not entitled to a share in the state of Chidambarathammal. The relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 may be noticed. Section 16(1) of the Act provides:

“The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16 —

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.”

By Section 16 it is provided:

“The order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate's property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:

Rule 1. Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.

Rule 2. * * *

Rule 3. The devolution of the property of the intestates on the heirs referred to in clauses (a), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) of Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death.”

Section 8 of the Act provides:

“The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter —

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule;

(c)-(d) * * *”

3. The claimants to the estate of Chidambarathammal fall within clause (4) in sub-section (1) of Section 15, and by virtue of Section 16, Rule 3 the devolution of the property will be in the order and according to the rules as would have applied as if the properly were of Shanmugam and he had died immediately after Chidambarathammal. The claimants to her estate fall within Class II, Item IV of the Schedule to the Act — (1) Mother's son, (2) Sister's son, (3) Brother's daughter, (4) Sister's daughter.

4. It was urged by Mr Chagla that amongst the heirs specified in Item IV of Class II the heirs in sub-item (1) take the property in preference to heirs mentioned in item (2), and heirs mentioned in item (2) in preference to heirs mentioned in item (3), and soon. But we have held on Satya Charan Dutta v. Urmilla Sundari Desai Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1966, Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1966, decided on September 9, 1969 that all the hells mentioned in an item of Class II of the Schedule take the property simultaneously and heirs specified earlier in the same sub-item do not exclude those latter in the sequence. The descendants of the brothers of Shannugam and of Ramalakshmi, his sister, therefore take the estate in equal shares.

5. Mr Chagla raised an alternative contention that the estate in the possession of the deceased must be deemed to have the same character as it had when Shanmugam died and thereafter the provisions of Section 6 of the Act applied in determining the rights of the claimants thereto. There is no substance in this contention. Section 16, Rule 3 on which reliance is placed by counsel merely designates the heirs; it has no relevance in determining the nature of the property. There is nothing in Rule 3 to support the contention that the estate of a person dying intestate is to be restored to the character which it had when it devolved upon the propositus: the rule specifies a method of determining the preferential heirs, and for that purpose creates a fiction. The heir of the father, mother or the husband, of the propositus who would have taken the estate if he had immediately died after death of the propositus is the heir to the propositus. It is common ground that the estate upon Chidambarathammal on the death of Shanmugam was property which he received on partition, and Section 6 of the Act has no application to property received by a member of a joint family on partition. Again Section 6 in terms applies only to those cases where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Act having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property. In our view the contention that the property must be deemed to be restored to the character of interest in coparcenary property and devolves under Section 6 is without substance.

6. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.

Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunschalathammal And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunschalathammal And Others

Comments