2001 (11) TMI 76 - SC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Property Inheritance Rights: Deceased's Heirs Granted Hearing

The court allowed legal heirs of a deceased respondent to be heard in an appeal, ultimately upholding the previous decision as the deceased had not been ... Whether section 15(1) of the Act will apply or section 15(2) of the of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will apply? Held that:- The source from which she inherits the property is always important and that would govern the situation. Otherwise persons who are not even remotely related to the person who originally held the property would acquire rights to inherit that property. That would defeat the intent and purpose of sub-section (2) of section 15, which gives a special pattern of succession. This court in its judgment dated March 31, 1999, held that clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 is the appropriate rule to be applied for succession of the property left by the deceased, Smt. Santi, and we find no reasons to take a different view. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs. Revised decree be drafted showing the newly added respondents on the party array. Issues:1. Failure to implead legal heirs of a deceased respondent in an appeal.2. Interpretation of succession rules under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 regarding property inherited by a female Hindu.3. Application of section 15(2)(a) of the Act to determine the devolution of property.Issue 1: Failure to Implead Legal HeirsThe appeal in question was heard and allowed by a Bench in 1989, with the original appellant's legal heirs brought on record. However, the respondent, Teja Singh, had passed away in 1986, but his legal heirs were not impleaded. After the appeal was disposed of, Teja Singh's legal heirs sought to be impleaded, leading the court to offer them an opportunity for a hearing. The court allowed both sides to present arguments, ultimately finding no reason to alter the previous decision due to Teja Singh not being heard during the initial appeal.Issue 2: Interpretation of Succession RulesThe case involved the inheritance of property by Smt. Santi from her mother, leading to a dispute upon Smt. Santi's death. The High Court initially ruled in favor of Teja Singh, brother of Smt. Santi's pre-deceased husband, but the Supreme Court, in its 1999 judgment, held that the property belonged to Smt. Santi from her mother and thus applied section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. This section dictates that property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother devolves upon the heirs of the father, in this case, Smt. Indro, Smt. Santi's sister.Issue 3: Application of Section 15(2)(a)The court rejected the contention that section 15 of the Act only applies prospectively, emphasizing that the source of inheritance is crucial for property devolution. The court cited precedents like Bajya v. Smt. Gopikabai and State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh to support its interpretation. It clarified that even if a female Hindu transitions from limited to full ownership under section 14(1) of the Act, the rules of succession under section 15(2) remain applicable based on the source of inheritance. The court upheld its previous judgment, applying clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 to determine the succession of Smt. Santi's property, ruling in favor of Smt. Indro.This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment highlights the issues of failure to implead legal heirs, the interpretation of succession rules under the Hindu Succession Act, and the application of section 15(2)(a) in determining property devolution in cases of inheritance by a female Hindu.