Ram Katori v. Prakashwati

Gupta and Katju, JJ.:— This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the compensation bonds awarded after the abolition of zamindari rights. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and its decree was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which came before one of us and in view of an important question of law arising in the case, it was referred to a larger Bench and has now come before us. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent before us. We requested Mr. Jagdish Swarup, a senior Advocate to this Court, to appear in the case as amicus curiae and we are indebted to him for the assistance given to us.

2. The question for determination is whether a Hindu daughter, whose mother inherited a limited interest in the property left by her husband on his death and who (the mother) subsequently became its full owner after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, succeeds to her mother's interest in the property on the latter's death to the exclusion of the daughter of her father by a predeceased wife.

3. One Chandu Lal married a lady who died leaving a daughter, viz., the plaintiff Smt. Ram Katori. Thereafter Chandu Lal married Ram Kali and the defendant Prakashwati was the offspring of that union. Chandu Lal died in 1920 and Ram Kali succeeded to her husband's estate as a limited owner. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act in June 1956 her limited interest in the property ripened into full ownership. Ram Kali died in October, 1956. The defendant Prakashwati contended that after the death of her mother Ram Kali she succeeded to the entire property left by Chandu Lal and the plaintiff Ram Katori had no interest therein. On the other hand, plaintiff Ram Katori alleged that she also being a daughter of Chandu Lal was entitled to a half share therein.

4. If the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act) had not come into force both the daughters of Chandu Lal would have succeeded to the property left by him. It has to be seen whether the Act has made any difference as regards the rights of the two step-sisters who are parties to the suit in appeal. Under the Hindu Law prior to the coming into force of the Act a Hindu widow succeeded to her husband's property for her life only and after her death the property passed to the heirs of her deceased husband. The Act introduced a change in the rights of widows whose limited interest in the property after the coming into force of the Act has blossomed into absolute ownership. The question of the devolution of the said property of Ram Kali has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

5. A Hindu female may inherit or get property from different sources. She may inherit it from her husband or her father-in-law; she may inherit from her father or her other paternal or maternal relations and she may own or acquire property in her own right. The following sections of the Act are relevant to the controversy before us:—

6. Sec. 15.(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Sec. 16—

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son of daughter) and the husband;

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

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

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

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

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1)—

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-sec. (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon “the other heirs referred to in sub-sec. (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”

7. Sec. 18. Heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to heirs related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect.

8. Sec. 15 draws a distinction with regard to the sources from where a female might have acquired properties. Sec. 15, sub-sec. (2)(a) refers to property inherited by a female from her father or her mother while Sec. 15(2)(b) refers to property inherited by a female from her husband or from her father-in-law. Sec. 15(1) obviously refers to properties either inherited or acquired by a Hindu female from sources other than those mentioned in Sec. 15(2)(a). The expression “in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased” occurs in both the clauses of Sec. 15(2). It is manifest that the expression “any son or daughter” as used in the two clauses refers to the son or daughter of the deceased Hindu female and not to the children of the deceased female's husband by a pre-deceased wife. If the same meaning to the expression “son or daughter” is given in the case before us, then the result would be that the plaintiff Ram Katori would be excluded from inheriting any interest in the property which originally belonged to her father. It is clear that the property in dispute in the present case originally belonged to Chandu Lal and it was not inherited by Ram Kali from her own father or mother. It had come to her from her husband Chandu Lal. Therefore Sec. 15(2)(a) has no application to the present case. So far as Sec. 15(2)(b) is concerned, it would have applied to the present case if the deceased Hindu female, viz., Ram Kali in the present case, had not left any son or daughter. Prakashwati is the daughter of Ram Kali and, therefore, the expression “in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased” in Sec. 15(2)(b) would make it inapplicable to the present case. We are then left with the provisions of Sec. 15(1) of the Act. The words used in Sec. 15(1)(a) are “sons and daughters” and not “son or daughter of the deceased”. The legislature has obviously made this distinction to bring all the children of the deceased husband of the female Hindu within the ambit of the rule laid down in Sec. 15(1)(a). It could be said that the expression ‘sons and daughters' as used in Sec. 15(1)(a) does not refer only to the sons and daughters of a female Hindu dying intestate but also includes the sons and daughters of her deceased husband. The legislature by deleting the words “of the deceased” in Sec. 15(1)(a) has protected the interest of the children of the husband of a Hindu female dying intestate, particularly in those cases where the female had inherited the property from her husband and not from her father or mother. If that had not been so, the rule would have been patently unfair to the children of the husband of the Hindu female from his predeceased wife or even a co-wife. Construing the expression “sons and daughters” in Sec. 15(1)(a) in view of the corresponding words used in Sec. 15(2) clauses (a) and (b), the conclusion is irresistible that the sons and daughters as indicated in Sec. 15(1)(a) would also include the children of the husband by a pre-deceased wife and consequently the plaintiff Ram Katori would have a half share in the property which initially belonged to her father and which had been inherited from the plaintiff's father by Ram Kali. After the death of Ram Kali the plaintiff has an equal share in the property in dispute along with Prakashwati.

9. We have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Sec. 18 are inapplicable to the present case. Sec. 18 deals with the claims of persons related to an intestate person by half blood and full blood. So far as the plaintiff Ram Katori is concerned, there is no question of her being related to Ram Kali by full blood or half blood. As a matter of fact there is no blood relationship at all between Ram Katori and Ram Kali. The relationship, if any, is in consequence of Ram Kali's marriage of Chandu Lal who was the father of Ram Katori. The question of half blood or full blood would have arisen only if there had been any controversy between the heirs of Ram Kali who were related to her by half blood and full blood. Obviously there is no question of any such relationship between Ram Katori and Ram Kali. Furthermore, the defendant Prakashwati could not be said to be related to her mother Ram Kali either by “full blood” or “half blood”. A daughter is the offspring of the union of her parents. The expressions “half blood” or “full blood” have no relevance in the case of the relationship between a daughter and her mother. It is clear that Sec. 18 has no application to the present case.

10. We are, therefore, of the view that the plaintiff Ram Katori, is entitled to the declaration sought by her.

11. The defendant-respondent further contended that the suit was barred by res judicata. The lower appellate court repelled this contention and held that the suit was maintainable. We agree with the view of the lower appellate court.

12. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the court below is set aside and the plaintiffs suit is decreed. The parties will bear their own costs in this court, but the plaintiff will have her costs of the courts below.

Appeal allowed.