TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Hindu Succession Act: Property succession between sisters clarified by Supreme Court.</h1> <h3>Bhagat Ram (dead) Versus Teja Singh</h3> The Supreme Court interpreted the Hindu Succession Act in a case involving property succession between two sisters. The Court ruled that the property ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will apply? Held that:- In the present case, it is not in dispute that both Indro and Santi inherited this property from their mother, hence inherited this property as a female from her mother. Thus on the facts of this case succession clearly falls under sub-section (2). Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that on the facts of this case, the property would devolve after the death of Santi not on the heirs of her pre-deceased husband but would devolve on Indro. This legal principle has wrongly been decided by all the courts below including the High Court. Appeal allowed. Issues:Interpretation of sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in a case involving succession of property inherited by a female Hindu from her mother.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over the succession of property inherited by two sisters, Indro and Santi, from their mother. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance after an agreement to sell the land was made with Indro, leading to the present suit by Teja Singh, claiming possession of Santi's share. The trial court decreed the suit under section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court, leading to the special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.The key question before the Supreme Court was whether section 15(1) or section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would apply in this case. Section 15(1) deals with the general rules of succession for a female Hindu dying intestate, while section 15(2) carves out exceptions for property inherited from specific relatives. The Court noted that property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother falls under section 15(2) and not section 15(1).The Court emphasized that the language of section 15(1) in conjunction with section 16 clarifies the succession rules for a Hindu female dying intestate. In this case, since both Indro and Santi inherited the property from their mother, the succession would fall under section 15(2) as property inherited from the mother. Therefore, after Santi's death, the property would devolve on Indro and not on the heirs of Santi's pre-deceased husband.The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, overturning the judgments of the lower courts, including the High Court. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgments, and directed the appellant to bear their own costs since the respondent did not appear for the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
