Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MST. MOHINDERO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1990
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 257 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 475
1991 SCC Supl. (2) 605 JT 1990 (4) 265
1990 SCALE (2)853
ACT:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 15(1)(a)--Succession
to estate of Hindu widow--Daughter of the deceased
son--Preferential heir--Entitled to succession.
HEADNOTE:
Santi married Kisso and gave birth to a son, the father
of the appellant. On the death of Kisso, Santi married his
brother, Ditto, who died issueless.
On the death of Ditto, the mutation of his estate was
sanctioned in Santi’s name, being his widow. She was in
possession of the same as life-Estate holder. She executed a
gift-deed in favour of her grand daughter, the appellant on
December 27, 1955 and she died on October 6, 1956, after the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.
Kissi, the sister of Santi’s husbands flied a suit for
possession contending that she was a preferential heir of
the suit property, and that the property had been illegally
mutated in the name of the appellant.
The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that without
challenging the gift deed, the suit for possession was not
competent.
Meanwhile Kissi, the plaintiff, having died, her heirs
the respondents preferred an appeal before the District
Judge. An application to amend the plaint, so as to chal-
lenge the validity of the gift was also flied. The District
Judge allowed the application and the appeal, and remanded
the case for fresh trial.
Holding the gift to be invalid, the Trial Court dis-
missed the suit on the ground of limitation, which was
affirmed by the District Judge, in appeal.
The Respondents’ Second Appeal to the High Court, was
allowed by a Single Judge who reversed the findings of the
Courts below on the issue of limitation.
476
The Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment
was dismissed.
The appellant in this Court has contended that the gift
being invalid, Santi, the grandmother of the appellant
continued to be a limited owner till the date of the com-
mencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and thereafter
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
by virtue of the provisions of the Act, she became full
owner of the suit-property and the appellant being the
daughter of a predeceased son of Santi was the preferential
heir under section 15(1)(a) of the Act and was entitled to
succeed to the property. The respondents contended the
appeal contending that unless it was factually proved that
appellant’s father was the son of Santi, the appellant could
not get the benefit of section 15 of the Act.
Allowing the appeal, this Court.
HELD: 1. The appellant being daughter of a predeceased
son was entitled to succeed to the property of Santi in
preference to the respondents-plaintiffs. [479D]
2. Santi held the property as limited owner till the
coming into force of the Act. She became full owner thereaf-
ter. When she died on October 6, 1956 succession to her
property was to be governed by the Act. Santi having died
intestate, succession to her property was to be governed by
Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act. Appellant being
the daughter of a predeceased son of Santi she had the first
preference to succeed under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
[479B-C]
This Court found sufficient material on the record to
prove that the appellant’s father was the son of Santi.
[479B]
JUDGMENT: