A case analysis of Om Prakash v Radha Charan,

FACT OF THE CASE:

One Smt. Narayani Devi was married to one Dindayal Sharma in the year 1955. She became
widow within three months of her marriage. Concededly, she was driven out of her matrimonial
home immediately after the death of her husband. After that she never stayed in her matrimonial
home. At her parental home, she was given education. She got an employment. She died inteste.
She had various bank accounts; she left a huge sum also in her provident fund
account.Ramkishori, mother of Narayani, filed an application for grant of succession certificate
in terms of Section 372 the Indian Succession Act.1 Respondents herein also filed a similar
application. It now stands admitted that all her properties were self-acquired.2

ISSUE INVOLVED :

.The question which arose for consideration before the courts below as also before us is as to
whether sub-Section (1) of Section 153 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act")
or sub-Section (2) thereof would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case4

The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that in a case of this nature
where the husband of the deceased or her in-laws had not made any contribution towards her
education or had not lent any support during her life time, sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the
Act should be held to be applicable. It was urged that the Parliamentary intent as contained in
clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of the Act should be the guiding factor for
interpreting the said provision.

The counsel for the respondent argued that Section 156 provides for the general rules of
succession in the case of female Hindus. 7 It lays down the mode and manner in which the

1
Indian sucession act
2
Om Prakash v Radha Charan,SC 2009
3
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
4
Onkar prashad v bhudhar Prasad , AIR, 2007,349
5
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
6
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
7
Mulla , 7th edition , 2389 page
devolution of interest of a female shall take place 8. Section 16 provides for the order of
succession and manner of distribution amongst the heirs of a female Hindu, stating that the same
shall be according to the rules specified therein.9 It reads as under:

The judgment referred

The court also looked into its earlier judgment Baghat ram v Tej singh 10held as under:

In the two Sub-sections the court found that their spheres are very clearly marked out. So far
Sub-section (1), it covers the properties of a female Hindu dying intestate. Sub-section (2) starts
with the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1)'. 11 In other words, what
falls within the sphere of Sub-section (2), Sub- section (1) will section 15 uses the words 'any
property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother'. Thus property inherited by a
female Hindu from her father and mother is carved-out from a female Hindu dying intestate.12 In
order words any property of female Hindu, if inherited by her from her father or mother would
not fall under Sub-section (1) section 15Thus, property of a female Hindu can be classified under
13
two heads: Every property of a female Hindu dying intestate is a general class by itself
covering all the properties but Sub-section (2) excludes out of the aforesaid properties the
property inherited by her from her father or mother. 14 Further the also referred to various
judgment and decided that it can’t take sympathy in its consideration. 15 This Court applied the
doctrine of proportionality having regard to a large number of decisions operating in the field.
This Court, however, also put a note of caution that no order should be passed only on sympathy
or sentiment."16 In Ganga Devi vs. District Judge, Nainital & Ors17. this Court held: The court
would not determine a question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. Stricto sensu equity
as such may not have any role to play."

JUDGEMENT
8
Poonam Pradhan saxena volume 3 , page 370
9
Sec hindu sucession act
10
AIR,1999,SC 085
11
Sec hindu sucession act
12
Poonam Pradhan saxena , volume 3 family law 2 , page 370
13
Mulla , 7th edition , 2389 page
14
Jharia v jhari , 2001
15
Onkar prashad v bhudhar Prasad , AIR, 2007,349
16
Chottapali pratap reddy v dsari pullama , 2007, SC 3098
17
AIR2006,SC3087
The single judge bench of justice Sinha decided the case .Ironically the claim of her mother and
then brother was navigated by the supreme court in the Hindu married women .of her becoming
of widow on the ground as per the provision in the Hindu secession act2005, its husband who has
the right to inherit the property of issue less Hence when section 15 will be read with section 16,
it makes clear which leads to the dismiss the appeal. 18 The case and the verdict are unfortunate
on two account, the law itself and its implementation in the present case19

18
Om Prakash v Radha Charan
19
Poonam Pradhan saxena , volume 3 family law 2 , page 370