NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

PROJECT TOPIC ON:

COMPREHENDING THE GENERAL RULES OF
SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF FEMALE HINDUS

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILMENT OF COURSE TITLED FAMILY LAW-II

FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE B.A., LL.B. (HONS.) DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR,

2020-2021

SUBMITTED BY:

GEETIKA MANDLOI

(2019BALLB121)

SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. KAVITA SINGH

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my Family Law

Associate Professor Ms. Kavita Singh for their valuable suggestion and
guidance and support in completing my project.

Also, I like to thanks my senior and batch mates for their support and
cooperation in carrying out my project. I would also like to extend my gratitude
to the library and computer staff of the university for providing the reading
material.

At last I would like to thanks my parents for their moral support.

GEETIKA MANDLOI
(2019BALLB121)

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that that the analysis of topic “COMPREHENDING THE

GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF FEMALE
HINDUS” has been prepared and submitted by Geetika Mandloi who is
currently pursuing her B.A.L.L.B (HONS.) SEMESTER-IV at National law
institute university Bhopal in fulfilment of the subject Family Law-II. It is
also certified that this is her original project and has not submitted to another
university.

Date:
Signature of the student _______________________

Table of Contents

3
INTRODUCION..................................................................................................................2
OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................3
HYPOTHESIS.....................................................................................................................3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE..............................................................................................3
METHOD OF STUDY........................................................................................................3
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS..................................................................................4
SCOPE OF SECTION-15:..............................................................................................4
DESCENDANT OF HINDU WIDOW- ENTITLED TO INHERITANCE OF
INTESTATE PROPERTY:.............................................................................................4
DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY LEFT BEHIND BY FEMALE HINDU
GOVERNED BY SOURCE FROM WHOM PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY
DECEASED FEMALE:..................................................................................................5
FEMALE HINDU DYING INTESTATE:......................................................................5
FEMALE HINDU DYING INTESTATE AND ISSUELESS:.......................................6
FEMALE HINDU INHERITING PROPERTY FROM MOTHER:...............................6
HINDU WIDOW:............................................................................................................6
HINDU WIDOW- INHERITED PROPERTY FROM HER SECOND HUSBAND-
RIGHT OF SON BY THE HUSBAND- SCOPE OF:....................................................7
PROPERTY RIGHTS, OF FEMALE I HINDU FAMILY:............................................7
SCOPE OF TERM “SON” IN CLAUSE (a):..................................................................7
SECTION 15- MODE OF CONSTRUCTION:..............................................................8
“SON OR DAUGHTER” AS USED IN SECTION 15(2) (b):.......................................8
RE: SECTION 15:...........................................................................................................9
FEMALE HINDU- DEVOLUTION OF HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND:......................10
QUESTION OF HEIRSHIP RESOLVED:...................................................................10
PROPERTY OF DECEASED FEMALE HINDU:.......................................................10
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................12

Cases
Bajya v. Gopi kavai...........................................................................................................13
Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh..............................................................................................12
Dhanistha Kalita v Ramakanta Kalita..........................................................................12
OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. RADHACHARAN AND OTHERS.......................11

4
 INTRODUCION

This section propounds a precise and uniform theme of succession to the property of a
feminine Hindu WHO dies intestate once the commencement of the Act. the principles
arranged down during this section square measure crucial and need to be browse in
conjunction with the principles taken off in section sixteen. they need conjointly to be
browse in conjunction with sure alternative section within the chapter that contains
supplementary provisions that don't seem to be just informative, however lay down
substantive rules involving legal principles.
The section teams the heirs of a feminine intestate into 5 classes delineated as Entries (a)-
(e) and laid out in sub-section (1). Sub-section (1), however, isn't an entire statement of
the law. 2 exceptions each of an equivalent natures are engrafted by sub-section (1).
generally expressed, the 2 exceptions are that if the feminine dies while not going away
any issue, then: (1) in respect of property transmitted by her from her father or mother,
that property can devolve not in line with the order set down within the 5 Entries,
however upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in respect of property transmitted by her
from her husband or begetter, it'll devolve not in line with the order set down within the 5
entries however upon the heirs of the husband.
The basis of inheritance of a feminine Hindu’s property that dies intestate would so be
the supply from that such feminine Hindu came into possession of the property and
therefore the manner of inheritance which might decide the style of devolution.
In this project work I even have tried to grasp the overall rules of succession within the
case of feminine Hindus.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The topic of my project is ‘COMPREHENDING THE GENERAL RULES OF

SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF FEMALE HINDUS’. In this project I have done an
attempt to understand and explain the provision of section 15 of Hindu Succession Act,
1956.

OBJECTIVES
1. What are the scopes of section 15 of Hindu succession act?
2. What are the GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF
FEMALE HINDUS?

5
 HYPOTHESIS
Section 15(1) says that if a Hindu woman dies without leaving a will, her property will
devolve in the following order. The first in the order are her children, children of a
predeceased child and her husband. If none of these persons is available, then it will go to
the next in line: the heirs of the husband.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 Modern Indian Family Law by Werner F. Menski
It is unsurpassed for a systematic arrangement of topics, for a clear and brief
statement of Irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The work contains as much of
historical detail at the same time containing such a "mass of statement and
illustration" as might tend to "oppress and dishearten the student." The unusual
success of the author in attaining his object is evidenced by the wide popularity of
the numerous editions of his work, and by the extent to which other writers have
used his outline and his text.

METHOD OF STUDY
The research methodology adopted is purely doctrinal in nature relying on primary and
secondary source material.

6
 OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

SCOPE OF SECTION-15:

It has been observed that the provision of sub-section (2) (a) of section 15 govern cases
where property in inherited. However, sub-section (1) of section 15 governs his case of
devolution by decree or bequest thereof.1

DESCENDANT OF HINDU WIDOW- ENTITLED TO INHERITANCE OF

INTESTATE PROPERTY:

There is no warrant to assume that the law-makers supposed to deprive the sons and
daughters or their youngsters from inheritance of the property left by a feminine Hindu
dying intestate just as a result of they were born to her from another husband that the one
type whom the property relevant was hereditary by the feminine Hindu.2

DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY LEFT BEHIND BY FEMALE HINDU

GOVERNED BY SOURCE FROM WHOM PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY
DECEASED FEMALE:

In the instant case the Hindu feminine became full-fledged owner of the property
hereditary by her from her husband. The property, on her death, would hop over to, and
devolve upon, solely those sons and daughters, whom she had biological from her
husband, whose property she had hereditary. If there was no such issue or no such issue
was alive, then the property, rather than devolving upon the sons or daughters whom she

1
Jayantilal v. Chhanalal, AIR 1968 Guj 212.
2
Rama Ananda Patil v. Appa Bhima Redekar, AIR 1969 Bom 205.

7
might need biological from another person as husband, would devolve upon the heirs of
her deceased husband, whose property she had hereditary. Deceased feminine was the
second married person of owner of the property, ‘S’ and he or she had a son already ‘J’
once she remarried ‘S’. As such, property hereditary by deceased feminine from ‘S’
couldn't devolve upon ‘J’ and his kids. Court control that on the death of feminine Hindu
property devolved upon the heirs of ‘S’ girl biological from his initial married person and
his nice grand kids.3

FEMALE HINDU DYING INTESTATE:

Property inherited by female Hindu from second husband is liable to be inherited by her
son from first husband in preference to her is of second husband.4

FEMALE HINDU DYING INTESTATE AND ISSUELESS:

In the instant case it absolutely was control that property inheritable by feminine Hindu
from her mother ought to devolve upon her sister i.e., legal heir of her father and not
upon brother of pre-deceased husband. the very fact that feminine Hindu had ab initio
restricted right and later noninheritable full possession was immaterial. The supply from
that she inheritable the property is often vital which would govern true.5

FEMALE HINDU INHERITING PROPERTY FROM MOTHER:

3
Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita, AIR 2003 Gau. 92.
4
Chintaram v. Rushibai, AIR 2000 NOC 33 (M.P.).
5
Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1944.

8
In case of female Hindu after death of mother property would devolve on her sister as per
sub-section (2) of section 15 and not heirs of her predeceased husband.6

HINDU WIDOW:

Property would devolve upon heirs of her husband after her death and sister of husband is
entitled to inherit the property left by her.7

HINDU WIDOW- INHERITED PROPERTY FROM HER SECOND HUSBAND-

RIGHT OF SON BY THE HUSBAND- SCOPE OF:

The short question that came up for determination within the instant case was on whether
or not, a son by the primary husband of a feminine Hindu, was entitled to the property on
her death genetic by her from her second husband, beneath section fifteen of the Act.
control that the petitioner was entitled to succeed to the property in preference to the
respondents. additional therefore such son was entitled to it, preference to the nephews
and grand-nephews of her second husband.8

PROPERTY RIGHTS, OF FEMALE I HINDU FAMILY:

As witness cannot say something regarding the same land except eighteen that he got
from Dhandbhari by a present, there are often absolute confidence of adverse possession
in relevancy the share of Batul. The litigant Nos. 1 and 2, however, well-tried that

6
Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1944.
7
Mahesh Kumar Pate v. Mahesh Kr. Vyas, AIR 2000 NOC 13 (M.P.).
8
Rama Ananda Patil v. Appa Bhima Redekar, AIR 1969 Bom 205.

9
Dhanbhari had created a present of her land to litigant by a deed of gift in 1962 the
litigant, therefore, cannot get this half.9

SCOPE OF TERM “SON” IN CLAUSE (a):

Held, that, in sight of the plain language of section fifteen scan with section sixteen of the
Act, it's apparent that the “step-son” wouldn't be enclosed in section 15(1). And, in sight
of the rule set-out in section sixteen of the Act, entry in clause (a) would take precedence
over relations enclosed within the clause (b) of section 15(1) and resultant clauses.10

SECTION 15- MODE OF CONSTRUCTION:

Having relation to the plain language of the phrasing and having relation to the
established that this phrasing is used by the general assembly in section 15(1) (a), it
cannot even be instructed that the words “son or girl” are often construed to mean her son
or daughter by any specific husband. it'll solely be affordable to presume that the general
assembly supposed to allow identical assuming to identical expression or phrasing not
solely in each a part of} identical section however really in terribly part of identical Act.11

“SON OR DAUGHTER” AS USED IN SECTION 15(2) (b):

The word “son or girl” of the deceased in section 15(1) (b) of the Act will solely mean a
son or daughter of the feminine dying intestate while not take to be to from that husband

9
Monomoyee Barmani v. Upeswari Barmani, AIR 1994 Gau 18 at 21.
10
Rattan Prakash v. Bela Sihare, AIR 1996 Del 356 at 357.
11
Rama Ananda Patil v. Appa Bhima Redekar, AIR 1969 Bom 205.

10
they were born to her. This interpretation is bolstered by the definition of the word
“related” in section 3(1) (j) of the Act. beneath the condition to the present definition
even illegitimate kids ar to be deemed to be “related” to their mother and to 1 another for
the needs of the Act. result of this definition is that the choice of words “son or girl of the
deceased” is to be construed to mean not solely the sons and daughters of the feminine
Hindu from any of her husbands, however even sons or daughters born to her in AN
illegitimate manner.

RE: SECTION 15:

“M”, a feminine Hindu, familial the suit property from her husband. She had no issue
and she or he died intestate. There was no heir from her husband’s facet entitled to
succeed to the property. The complainant, grandchild of the brother of “M”, claimed to
be entitled to induce the property of the deceased. The case of the State was that the
complainant wasn't her qualified heir underneath the Act and it absolutely was a case of
failure of heirs leading to the property familial by “M” from her husband became her
absolute property visible of section fourteen and therefore the property would devolve
upon the heirs mere underneath section 15(1).
The supreme court conjointly discovered that litigator would be entitled to succeed to the
estate of “M” even beneath section 15(2) being Associate in Nursing heir of her father
beneath section 15(1) (d) of the Act. The Supreme Court unemployed the attractiveness
of the State, however not for the explanations explicit by the supreme court and
command as follows: Section 15(2) was meant to revise the order of succession among
the heirs to a Hindu feminine and to forestall the properties from passing into the hands
of persons to whom justice would demand that they must not pass.
Sub-section (2)(b) emphasizes that the property of the intestate shall not devolve upon the
heirs stated in sub-section (1) within the order specified there beneath however upon
heirs of the husband. the item looks to be to not eliminate the opposite heirs beneath sub-

11
section (1) and to not exclude them from inheritance altogether. there's no justice in such
a construction of Section fifteen. The Parliament couldn't have supposed that result.
which means that property ought to go into the primary instance to the heirs of the
husband or to the supply from wherever it came.

FEMALE HINDU- DEVOLUTION OF HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND:

If at the time of death of female Hindu, there is any heir of her husband, being widow of
his pre-deceased son, she will be entitled to be one of the heirs.

QUESTION OF HEIRSHIP RESOLVED:

In the instant case the state supreme court came to the finding that the applier did not
prove that she was female offspring of the deceased, command that the title of suit land
given nearest advantageous heir with directions thence that the applier WHO was
purported to be female offspring born to second spouse advantageous heir’s husband,
possession of sure portion of land just for her period of time.

PROPERTY OF DECEASED FEMALE HINDU:

Step-son of deceased feminine Hindu wasn't a discriminatory heir. Husband of deceased

World Health Organization was alive had familial the whole property of the deceased
being her legal heir. control that suit filed by husband of deceased termination license of
her step-son to occupy suit premises was reparable .

CASE LAWS

12
OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. RADHACHARAN AND OTHERS12

Narayani devi was married to Deendayal Sharma who died after three months of
marriage. She left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. She also died
on July 11, 1996. She left behind a substantial estate, but didn’t write any will. Both her
parents and his husband’s parents claimed for succession certificate. The court
considering section 15 of the Hindu succession act court granted succession certificate to
wife’s mother.

Whereas, Section 15(1) says that if a Hindu lady dies while not feat a can, her property
can devolve within the following order. the primary within the order ar her kids, kids of a
predeceased kid and her husband. If none of those persons is on the market, then it'll
attend successive in line: the heirs of the husband. Standing behind them are the heirs of
the daddy and also the mother. Section 15(2) says that all the same these provisions, if the
girl isn't survived by {a kid|a toddler|a baby} or the kids of a predeceased child, then any
property she transmitted from her father or mother can attend the father's heirs, and any
property she transmitted from her husband or relative-in-law can attend the husband's
heirs.

The Supreme Court command that Section 15(1) lays down the normal rule of
succession; Section 15(2)(a) solely carves out AN exception to Section 15(1). It
determined that the law is silent on a Hindu woman's self-acquired property, and such
property can't be thought-about as property familial from her folks. The court said: “This
could be a laborious case… on the other hand solely as a result of a case seems to be
laborious wouldn't lead USA to invoke completely different interpretation of a statutory
provision, that is otherwise impermissible. it's currently a well settled principle in law
that sentiment or sympathy alone wouldn't be a guiding consider determinative the rights
of the parties that area unit otherwise clear and unambiguous.”

In this case, her mother’s claim was based on fairness, equity and justice not on the
sentiments. However, the supreme court found that the law was a hurdle to her claim.

Dhanistha Kalita v Ramakanta Kalita13

In a recent case, a girl died jilting a son and a female offspring, born to her from the
husband whose property she had familial. From her previous wedding, she already had a
son. The Gauhati court control that the son born of the previous wedding wasn't entitled
to urge the property, because it was the property that was familial by the lady from her
second husband and he wasn't the heir of that husband. The expression ‘son and female
offspring’ would mean the son and daughter of that husband from whom or from whose
father, she had familial the property. The court reasoned that if such property is allowed
to be drifted faraway from the supply through that the deceased feminine had familial the
property, the article of Section 15(2) would be defeated. the aim of Section 15(2) is to

12
AIR (2009)15 SCC Page 66
13
AIR 2001 Gau 92.

13
confirm that the property left by a Hindu feminine doesn't lose the important supply from
that the deceased feminine had familial the property as control just in case Dhanistha
Kalita v Ramakanta Kalita AIR 2001 Gau 92.

Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh14

In this case, a feminine Hindu at the side of her sister transmitted property from their
mother on her death. once inheritable the property one sister died issueless. the opposite
sister took the property as her ‘father’s heir’ below Section 15(2)(a) and united to sell
constant to person A. The deceased sister’s husband’s brother challenged the validity of
this sale associate degreed claimed the property as an heir below Section 15(1)(b).

The learned counsel for the respondents i.e., heirs of the husband contended that the
deceased feminine noninheritable the property from her mother WHO died. And at that
point the deceased feminine had solely restricted rights over this property however by
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, she became the total owner of the property.
Therefore, on her death, the property unbroken by her would be familial by her legal
heirs as per the foundations mentioned in Section 15(1). He conjointly confronted that
Section fifteen of the Hindu Succession Act can have solely ultimate operation in step
with the words employed in the Section15(2)(a) that's ‘any property familial by a
feminine Hindu is to be thought-about as property familial by her once the
commencement of the Act.

The court, however, discovered that it's not necessary that such inheritance ought to are
once the commencement of the Act. The intent of the assembly is evident that the
property if belonged to the oldsters of the deceased feminine originally ought to head to
the father’s legal heirs. therefore conjointly below Section 15(2)(b), the property genetic
by a feminine Hindu from her husband or her father, shall conjointly devolve upon the
heirs of the husband below similar circumstances. it's the supply from that the property
was genetic by the feminine, that is additional essential for devolution of her property. we
tend to don't suppose the very fact that a feminine Hindu originally had restricted rights
and later noninheritable the complete right in any means would flip the principles of
succession given in Section 15(2).

CONCLUSION

I will conclude once creating this project work that section fifteen, because the initial a part of the
section expressly indicates, has got to be scan with section sixteen. Rule three of section sixteen
states in clear terms that the devolution shall be as if the property had been the husband’s and
14
1999 (2) SCR 358

14
therefore the husband had died right away once the intestate’s death. The Supreme Court
pointed out Bajya v. Gopi kavai15 that once it's found that a case falls underneath sub-
section (2) (b) of this section the fiction envisaged in rule three of section sixteen is
attracted and it's to be deemed has if the husband had died intestate straightaway when
the feminine intestate’s death. And section eight can inherit oppression on it basis.

REFERENCES

BOOKS:

 Modern Indian Family Law by Werner F. Menski

Family Law, 3rd edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Pound, P. H.
(1993).

15
AIR 1974 SC 665.

15
  Mulla’s Hindu law
4th edition (1974) Delhi: Oxford University Press

 Paras Diwan, Family Law

Year of Publication: 2005 Edition: Seventh

WEB SOURCES

 www.manupatra.com

 books.google.com/books

 www.legalserviceindia.com/helpline/helpline_HOME.htm

16