Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUTHUVENKATARAMA IYENGAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/1998
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellant is the daugher-in-law of the deceased
Gomathi Ammal. Venkatarama Iyengar, the husband of the
appellant was the only son of Gomathi Ammal and her husband
Sesha Iyengar. He died prior to the death of Gomathi Ammal.
Venkatarama Iyengar and the appellant have no children. The
husband of Gomathi Ammal also died long prior to her death.
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of ownership and
possession of properties left by Gomathi Ammal who died
intestate. The respondent, claiming to be the son of Gomathi
Ammal’s brother, contested the suit on the ground that
Gomathi Ammal made a will in his favour.
The will has not been accepted either by the trial
Court or by the first appellate Court or by the High Court
in second appeal. The only reason why the High Court has
allowed the second appeal is on the ground that the
appellant is not an heir of her mother-in-law under the
Hindu Succession Act.
This finding proceeds on a misconception of the
provisions of the Hindu Succession act. Section 15 of the
Hindu Succession act provides general rules of succession in
the case of female Hindus. Under sub-section (1), the
property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall devolve (a)
firstly, upon the sons and daughters(including the children
of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b)
secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. Gomathi Ammal does
not have any heirs falling under (a). Therefore, we have to
examine who are the heirs of her husband. The heirs of a
male Hindu are set out in the Schedule to the Hindu
Succession Act. Heirs in class I include a widow of a pre-
deceased son. The appellant fits this description. But the
High Court has held that when Sesha Iyengar, the husband of
Gomathi Ammal died, their son Venkatarama Iyengar was alive.
So the appellant cannot be called the widow of a pre-
deceased son.
In order to decide who are the heirs of a female Hindu
under category (b) of Section 15(10, one does not have to go
back to the date of the death of the husband to ascertain
who were his heirs at that time. The heirs have to be
ascertained not at the time of the husband’s death but at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the time of the wife’s death because the succession opens
only at the time of her death. Her heirs under Section 15(1)
(b) will have to be ascertained as if the succession to her
husband had opened at the time of her death. Thus, if at the
time of Gomathi Ammal’s death, there is any heir of her
husband who fits the description in the schedule of being
the widow of his pre-deceased son, she will be one of the
heirs entitled to succeed. The status of the heir must be
determined at the time of the death of the female whose
heirs are being ascertained. The appellant was the widow of
a pre-deceased son on the date when Gomathi Ammal died.
Therefore, the learned single Judge was not right in coming
to the conclusion that the appellant is not an heir of
Gomathi Ammal.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. the impugned order
of the High Court is set aside and the suit filed by the
plaintiff is decreed with costs.