SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT WIDOW OF A PRE-DECEASED SON DOES NOT HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT TO RECEIVE A SHARE IN A MOTHER-IN-LAW’S PROPERTY
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 06-11-2023 in the matter of Sachidhanandam (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.) Vs. E. Vanaja And Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3667 / 2018 held that the High Court’s allocation of a 1/16th share to the Plaintiff from her mother-in-law’s stake in the ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties was not in accordance with provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
FACTS:
(i) That the aforesaid Appeal was filed before the Apex Court by one, Sachidhanandam (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.) (Appellant / Defendant No. 2) against the E. Vanaja, Mathivanan @ Dhurairaj, Somasundaram @ Kannapiran and Ors. (Respondents / Plaintiffs), who challenged the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, Tamil Nadu (High Court) which allowed the regular second appeal in part, preferred by the Respondent No. 1 (E.Vanaja-Plaintiff) vide Order dated 28.02.2014.
(ii) That, the Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff, who is the widow and sole heir of ‘Elango’ (Deceased husband), the third son of Nallathambi Chettiar, filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the joint family properties described in schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’, as well as for mesne profits. The Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff asserted that the ‘B’ schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of Nallathambi Chettiar, the ‘C’ schedule properties were purchased by the Defendants from the income earned from the ‘B’ schedule properties, and the ‘C1’ schedule properties were joint family properties. The Plaintiff sought a 1/8th share in all the properties.
(iii) Thereafter, the Appellants / Defendants admitted the relationship between the parties but contended that the Plaintiff could only claim a share in her deceased husband’s share in the joint family properties. Further, they argued that on Elango’s death, his 1/8th share in Nallathambi Chettiar’s estate devolved equally between the Plaintiff and Elango’s mother. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff was entitled only to a 1/16th share in ‘B’ schedule properties of her mother-in-law’s property. Regarding ‘C’ schedule properties, they argued that, except for specific items, these did not belong to the joint family.
(iv) Thereafter, both the parties presented evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the Defendants’ claim based on a will and held that the properties in schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were joint family properties and awarded the Plaintiff a 1/8th share. Subsequently, the First Appellate Court modified this Order granting the Plaintiff a 1/16th share in ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties and denying partition of ‘C’ schedule properties.
(v) Further, the High Court, in the Second Appeal, considered certain substantial questions of law. That the Hon’ble High Court found that the properties and business of the joint family were in joint possession, and thus, all the properties in the schedules were joint family properties. The Hon’ble High Court, therefore, held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a 1/7th share, considering the death of the Plaintiff’s husband and mother-in-law, out of the 1/8th and 1/16th shares in the ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ schedule properties.
TRIAL COURT FINDINGS:
I) The Ld. Trial Court rejected the validity of the Will dated 01.02.2000 executed by the deceased 1st Defendant (Nagammal). Further, the Ld. Trial Court held that the Defendants failed to establish the authenticity of the Will, and as a result, they were not entitled to claim rights in the properties mentioned in the Will.
II) Thereafter, the Trial Court determined that the properties listed in schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ were joint family properties. The Ld. Court did not accept the argument that these were self-acquired or individually owned properties of Nallathambi Chettiar. Consequently, the Trial Court ruled that the Plaintiff was entitled to her share in these properties to the extent of 1/8th.
III) Accordingly, in respect of ‘C’ schedule properties, the Trial Court held that, except for items 15 and 16 standing in the name of the Plaintiff’s deceased husband, the other properties did not belong to the joint family. Therefore, it concluded that ‘C’ schedule properties, except for the specified items, were not liable for partition.
IV) Based on aforesaid findings, the Ld. Trial Court determined that the Plaintiff, as the widow and sole heir of the deceased, was entitled to a 1/8th share in the joint family properties, as mentioned in schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’.
HIGH COURT FINDINGS:
Aggrieved by the Appellate Court Order dated, the Appellant filed Second Appeal (Civil) (SA) No. 76 /2009 before Madras High Court. The High Court, vide Order dated 28-02-2014, allowed the Petition and made the following observations:
a) The High Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, found that the properties and the business of the joint family continued to be in joint possession of both parties. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that the status of the joint family, both backward and forward, must be taken into account by the Court.
b) Further, the High Court disagreed with the First Appellate Court’s decision and concluded that all properties mentioned in schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ are joint family properties. The Bench disagreed with the categorization made by the First Appellate Court and deemed all properties liable for partition.
c) Thereafter, the High Court decided that the Plaintiff was entitled to a 1/7th share out of the 1/8th and 1/16th shares in the ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ schedule properties, following the death of their husband and mother-in-law. This distribution was different from the one decided by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
d) The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law raised during the appeal, including the admission that the properties were purchased from joint family income, the validity of the Will (Ex. B12), and the dismissal of the suit regarding certain properties standing in the name of certain Defendants.
SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION:
Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 28-02-2014, the Appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide Order dated 06-11-2023 held as follows:
1) The Apex Court found no perversity in the High Court’s findings that all the suit properties were joint family properties. This means that the High Court’s determination regarding the nature of the properties was considered reasonable and not flawed.
2) Thus, the Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court erred in allotting a 1/16th share to the Plaintiff out of her mother-in-law’s share in the ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ schedule properties. The Court referred to Sections 15(1)(a) (General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus)[1] and 16 (Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu)[2] of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3) Further, the Bench highlighted Section 15(1)(a), which provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Section 16 of the Act outlines the Order of succession among the heirs of a female Hindu, and the Court emphasized the rules specified in Section 16 for the distribution of the intestate’s property among the heirs.
4) Hence, the Apex Court concluded that, based on the provisions of Sections 15 and 16, the Plaintiff, being the widow of the pre-deceased son, does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the High Court’s judgment. Further, the modification clarified that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a 1/16th share in the share of her mother-in-law in the suit properties.
5) Subsequently, despite the modification, the Bench affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the High Court, subject to the specified modification. Hence, the Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal in the stated terms, with each party bearing its own costs.
CONCLUSION:
Based on aforesaid mentioned facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon examination, found that the High Court’s determination of the properties as joint family properties reasonable. However, it disagreed with the allotment of a 1/16th share to the Plaintiff based on the Hindu Succession Act. Sections 15(1)(a) and 16 of the Act were crucial in establishing the Order of succession and the manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. The Court concluded that, as the widow of the pre-deceased son, the Plaintiff did not have the first right to her mother-in-law’s share.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the High Court’s judgment to exclude the Plaintiff’s entitlement to a 1/16th share in her mother-in-law’s share. The overall judgment and decree of the High Court were affirmed, subject to this modification. The civil appeal was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs.
Sakshi Raghuvanshi
Legal Associates
The Indian Lawyer
[1] Section 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,
(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;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the Order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the Order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
[2] Section 16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.
The Order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate’s property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:―
Rule 1.―Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2.―If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestates death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestates death.
Rule 3.―The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be in the same Order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.