Madras High Court
Saroja Chandrasekar vs The Union Of India
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 01.07.2015
Delivered on: 15.07.2015
Coram:
The Honble Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Writ Petition Nos. 19942 to 19944 of 2002
--------------
1. Saroja Chandrasekar
2. K.R.Chandrasekar Petitioners in all
the petitions
vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. The Tahsildar,
Mannargudi Taluk,
Thiruvarur District.
3. The Chief Medical Officer,
Government Hospital,
Orathanadu,
Thanjavur District.
4. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Madurai-Mandabam Road,
Ramanathapuram,
5. The City Union Bank Limited,
Mannargudi Branch,
Mannargudi-614 001.
6. The Post Master,
Orathanadu Post Office,
Orathanadu,
Thanjavur District.
7. Dr.R.Krishnaswamy
8. Mrs.Jayalakshmi Respondents in all the petitions
Prayer in W.P.No.19942 of 2002:- Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Declaration or any other writ or order or direction, declaring clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the properties inherited by a female Hindu through her mother will devolve only on the heirs of the mother in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Prayer in W.P.No.19943 of 2002: Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Declaration or any other writ, or order or direction, declaring that the disqualification attaching to a person under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act will also attach to the heirs of the said person in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Prayer in W.P.No.19944 of 2002: Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the Tahsildar-second respondent to issue legal heir certificate for Baby Keerthana in favour of the petitioners.
For Petitioners in all
the petitions ::: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram
for M/s. S.Silambanan Associates.
For Respondent 1
in all the petitions ::: Mr.SU.Srinivasan
Assistant Solicitor General
For Respondents 2 & 3
in all the petitions ::: Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy,
Government Pleader
For Respondent 5
in all the petitions ::: Mr.R.S.Varadarajan
For Respondent 6
in all the petitions ::: Mr.V.Vaithiyalingam
For Respondents 4,7&8 ::: No Appearance
::: Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham,
Public Prosecutor
(Assisted the Court)
C O M M O N O R D E R
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE The petitioners seek to raise the issue of gender discrimination arising from the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the legal heirs of a married female Hindu on the issue of inheritance.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows:-
The petitioners are husband and wife and late Dr.Kalyani was a female progeny from the marriage. Dr.Kalyani got the best of education and completed her M.B.B.S Degree from Madurai Medical College in the year 1986 and joined as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service in the year 1991. She being a lady having her own sources of income, naturally invested her earnings. She continued her further education by pursuing Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Stanley Medical College, Chennai, which course she completed in the year 1996.
3. She married Dr.Ramachandran, son of the seventh and eighth respondents before us. It is stated to have been an arranged marriage and the matrimonial home was set up at Mannargudi. Dr.Kalyani gave birth to a female child by name Keerthana in the year 1998. In the petitions before us the allegation is that Dr.Kalyani was subjected to ill-treatment and mental torture by her husband Dr.Ramachandran, as well as her in-laws and her sister-in-law. It is alleged that as she was not allowed to work in the Government Hospital by her husband and in-laws, she was forced to take leave and remain in the house for almost one and half years. However, for decision on these petitions these facts do not have any significance for the reasons set out herein after.
4. The in-laws of Dr.Kalyanai left for Dubai in October-November, 2000 for a few months and it is alleged that Dr.Kalyani was living in the house of her in-laws along with her husband Dr.Ramachandran and daughter Keerthana. On the fateful day of 14.12.2000, Dr.Ramachandran is alleged to have murdered his wife Dr.Kalyani by administering some poisonous injection. Two days later i.e., 16.12.2000 another tragedy struck when the two year old daughter Keerthana also passed away. It is alleged that Dr.Ramachandran administered the same poisonous injection to her. On the same day, after a few hours, he is alleged to have committed suicide. The local police at Mannargudi registered a case in Crime No.918 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Despite the aforesaid tragic events, it appears that disputes arose inter-se petitioners on the one hand and respondents 7 & 8 on the other in respect of the estate left behind by Dr.Kalyani. The grievance made is that respondents 7 & 8, despite the double murder committed by her son, wanted to take advantage qua the estate left by Dr.Kalyani claiming preferential rights over those of the petitioners. The General rules of succession in case of female Hindus is provided under Section 15 of the said Act, while Section 16 of the said Act provides the Order of succession and manner of distribution among the heirs of a female Hindu. Sections 15 & 16 of the said Act read as under:
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 subsection (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 to 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 subsection (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
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 intestates property among those heirs shall take place according, to the following rules, namely:
Rule 1. - Among the heirs specified in subsection (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those including 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 subsection (2) to Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the fathers or the mothers or the husbands as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestates death.
6. On the demise of Dr.Kalyani, as per Section 15(1)(a) of the said Act, the estate would devolve on her daughter and her husband in equal share. Since the daughter Keerthana also passed away two days later, the part of her estate inherited from her mother Dr.Kalyani, would in terms of Section 15(1)(c), once again devolve on Dr.Ramachandran. On the demise of Dr.Ramachandran, Section 8 read with the schedule would decide the line of succession. In view of his wife and daughter being both dead before him, the inheritance would go to the mother-class-I heir, being respondent no.7. It may be noticed that the 8th respondent-father would be the class-II heir, the highest category in that class. Simultaneously, another provision, which would come into play, is Section 25 of the said Act, which reads as under:-
25. Murdered disqualified. -A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder.
7. Thus, if Dr.Ramachandran, is guilty of murdering his wife-Dr.Kalyani, he would be disqualified from inheriting her property as per the aforesaid provision. Insofar as the child Baby Keerthana is concerned, who would, in that seniority, inherit the intestate of her mother on her demise. As per Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act, the estate would devolve upon the heirs of her father being Respondents 7 & 8. It is only in the next category, as per Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act, the heirs of the mother, being the petitioners, be entitled. It appears that it is on account of these legal provisions that respondents 7 & 8 have claimed the right of inheritance under Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act over the rights of inheritance of the rights of the petitioners under Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act.
8. On 18.03.2002, the Tahsildar-second respondent is stated to have issued the legal heir certificate of the deceased minor child Keerthana in favour of respondents 7 & 8 being the paternal grand-parents. The petitioners called upon the second respondent to cancel the legal heir certificate by issuing a legal notice of the same date and requested him to issue legal heir certificate in favour of the petitioners to which there was no reply.
9. The aforesaid factual position has given rise to three writ petitions being filed. The prayer made in the three writ petitions are as under:-
W.P.No.19942 of 2002:- Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Declaration or any other writ or order or direction, declaring clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the properties inherited by a female Hindu through her mother will devolve only on the heirs of the mother in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
W.P.No.19943 of 2002: Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Declaration or any other writ, or order or direction, declaring that the disqualification attaching to a person under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act will also attach to the heirs of the said person in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
W.P.No.19944 of 2002: Petition filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the Tahsildar-second respondent to issue legal heir certificate for Baby Keerthana in favour of the petitioners.
10. The writ petitions were admitted on 13.06.2002. It, however, appears that at that stage no counter affidavits have been filed. The petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.10.2010. However, on applications filed for restoration of the writ petitions, the petitions were restored and posted before the Division Bench on account of the fact that it laid a challenge to the statutory provisions. It is in these circumstances the matter came up before us on 18.02.2015 when the Court directed the State Government to place the records before it of the result of the investigation carried out into the death of the daughter and daughter-in-law of the petitioners and thereafter of the son-in-law of the petitioners. Since none appeared on behalf of respondents 7 & 8, default notice was issued to the learned counsel to enter appearance for them as well to respondents 7 & 8 in person and the matter was directed to be listed on 11.03.2015. On 11.03.2015, it was enquired from the Government Pleader as to whether any finding was reached into the cause of the death of the daughter and grand-daughter, as the proceedings against the son-in-law, who is alleged to have committed suicide, would abate qua allegation of murdering daughter and the grand-daughter of the petitioners. However, none appeared on behalf of respondents 7 & 8 on the said date. On 22.04.2015, learned counsel for respondents 7 & 8, who had entered appearance earlier, appeared and stated that he entered appearance earlier on instructions of another local counsel, who has left practice and the bundles had been taken from him, and thus he has no instructions. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that despite all endeavours, it has not been possible to trace out the papers qua the FIR regarding the case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Dr.Ramachandran prior to his committing suicide. The Bench, however, decided to issue notice to be personally served on respondents 7 & 8 by Public Prosecutor through the concerned jurisdictional police station. It is at that stage, it was known that the 7th respondent had passed away and his death certificate was subsequently filed. In so far as the 8th respondent was concerned, she was stated to be 85 years of age and practically bed ridden. Service on her was however effected in the presence of the person looking after her. However, none still chose to appear for the 8th respondent and thus, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the records.
11. It may be noticed that respondent no. 7 (during his life time) or respondent no.8 have not filed any counter affidavit rebutting the allegations made in the petitions about the manner of death of daughter-in-law Dr.Kalyani and grand-daughter Baby Keerthana.
12. A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India stating that they had no role to play in respect of issue of inheritance and that the LIC policy bearing No.740776978 taken by the deceased Dr.Kalyani has been admitted for an amount of Rs.1,69,540/-, which amount was remitted in the Post Office, Orathanadu, Tanjore District on 01.04.2004 by the Ramnad Branch Office of the fourthrespondent-corporation, as directed by this Court on 12.03.2004. On a perusal of the records, it transpires that miscellaneous petition No.439 of 2003 had been filed to preserve the monies lying to the credit of late Dr.Kalyani. The details of these, to the extent known by the petitioners, as contained in the order dated 12.03.2004 are as under:-
i) LIC Policy No.740776978 dated 28.3.1991 for Rs.1,00,000/-
ii) Savings Bank Account No.11019 with City Union Bank, Mannargudi Branch.
iii) Fixed Deposits, each for Rs.50,000/- numbering two, with City Union Bank, Mannargudi Branch on 2.2.2000 for 15 months and the third one for Rs.50,000/- pm on 5.12.2000.
iv) Terminal benefits, payment due to death while in service, arrears of pay and allowance etc., along with Provident Fund accruals etc., due to her for her service in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. It was agreed by both the petitioners and respondents 7 & 8 that all the amounts be deposited with the fifth respondent-City Union Bank to be kept in a Fixed Deposit, which request was allowed by the Court. Prior to this, interim injunction was sought and granted on 13.06.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.27530 of 2002 in W.P.No.19942 of 2002 against the distribution of estate of Dr.Kalyani to anyone other than the petitioners and the said interim injunction granted on 13.06.2002 was made absolute on 14.08.2003 to preserve the properties.
13. The counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent-City Union Bank on 06.06.2015 gives the details of the amount lying to the credit of late Dr.Kalyani and late Baby Keerthana, the details of which are as under:-
Depositor Account Balance originally with the 5th respondent Indian Bank DD Charges Deposited with 6th respondent in A/c No. Amount Minor Keerthana Rs.56,916/-
Rs.142/-
33662 Rs.57, 774/-
R.Kalyani Rs.13,372/-
Rs.33/-
33663 Rs.13,339/-
R.Kalyani Rs.55,460/-
Rs.139/-
33664 Rs.55,321/-
R.Kalyani Rs.56,516/-
Rs.142/-
33665 Rs.56,774/-
The relevant documents being the pass books have also been filed by the fifth respondent.
14. On an examination of the aforesaid materials, the three questions of law which arise for consideration in these petitions are as under:-
(1) Whether the disqualification attaching to a person (Dr.Ramachandran) under Section 25 of the said Act, will attach to the heirs of the said person (parents of Dr.Ramachandran) and hence the parents of Dr.Ramachandran are entitled to inherit the estate of Baby Keerthana?
(2) Whether clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act is arbitrary in so far it gives preference to the heirs of the father over the heirs of the mother, even in a case where the entire estate which devolved on the daughter is from her mother and not from her father?
(3) Whether the Tahsildar is under a legal obligation to give legal heir certificate for the deceased grand daughter Keerthana, in favour of the petitioners i.e., maternal grand parents and cancel the legal heir certificate given to respondents 7 & 8 i.e., the paternal grand parents?
Question No.1:-
15. (a) The sequence of events are as such that the death of Dr.Kalyani, who expired intestate, was succeeded two days later by the death of her daughter aged two years. The allegation was that Dr.Ramachandran had murdered both the persons and even a case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the investigation did not proceed further as, on the same date of the death of the daughter, Dr.Ramachandran committed suicide. We did endeavour to find out the veracity of the allegation of Dr.Ramachandran having murdered his wife and daughter. But other than the registration of the FIR, no material was available as per the records. Respondents 7 & 8 have not chosen to file any counter affidavit denying the said facts. The case of the petitioners is that the said respondents sought legal heir certificate solely based on the provisions of the said Act, despite knowing these facts. It is, however, not in dispute that a case in Crime No.918 of 2000 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Dr.Ramachandran. Thus, once Section 25 of the said Act comes into play, having murdered his wife Dr.Kalyani, Dr.Ramachandran, would be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person he murdered and thus the entire property would devolve on his minor daughter Baby Keerthana, who is also stated to have been murdered by Dr.Ramachandran two days later and he also committed suicide on the same day. By reason of Section 25 of the said Act, he would be disqualified from inheriting the estate of his daughter late Baby Keerthana.
(b) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out by relying on Section 27 of the said Act that in a case of such disqualification, the property would devolve, as if such person had died before intestate. The said provision reads as under:-
27. Succession when heir disqualified: - If any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the intestate.
(c) The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners was that respondents 7 & 8 could not claim preference in estate under Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act, since the disqualification attached to Dr.Ramachandran would also attach to his heirs i.e., his parents being respondents 7& 8. As a result of the same, it was stated, that the petitioners being the maternal grand-parents of the minor child would be the sole persons having the right of inheritance from the minor female child Baby Keerthana under Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act. Learned senior counsel claims this entitlement by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vellikannu vs. R.Singaperumal and another reported in 2005 (6) SCC 622, wherein it has been held that if a male survivor is disqualified to inherit the property of the person whom he murdered, then anyone who succeeds through the murderer cannot lay a claim in the property. The relevant paragraphs dealing with this controversy are as under:-
.But the question is that when the sole male survivor had incurred the disqualification can he still claim the property by virtue of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law ? If he cannot get the property by way of survivorship, then the question is whether his wife who succeeds through the husband can succeed to the property? Our answer to this question is in negative. In fact, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, Sections like 25 & 27 were not there but the murderer of his own father was disqualified on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and as a measure of public policy. This position of law was enunciated by the Privy Council way back in 1924 in the case of Kenchava Kom Sanyellappa Hosmani & Anr. vs. Girimallappa Channappa Somasagar reported in AIR 1924 PC 209 wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:
" In their Lordships' view it was rightly held by the two Courts below that the murderer was disqualified ; and with regard to the question whether he is disqualified wholly or only as to the beneficial interest which the Subordinate Judge discussed, founding upon the distinction between the beneficial and legal estate which was made by the Subordinate Judge and by the High Court of Madras in the case of Vedanayaga Mudaliar v. Vedammal (ILR (1904) 27 Mad 591), their Lordships reject, as did the High Court here, any such distinction. The theory of legal and equitable estates is no part of Hindu law, and should not be introduced into discussion.
The second question to be decided is whether the title can be claimed through the murderer. If this were so, the defendants as the murderer's sisters, would take precedence of the plaintiff, his cousin. In this matter also, their Lordships are of opinion that the Courts below were right. The murderer should be treated as non-existent and not as one who forms the stock for a fresh line of descent. It may be pointed out that this view was also taken in the Madras case just cited."
Their Lordships also explained the decision in the case of Gangu vs. Chandrabhagabai reported in (1908) 32 Bom. 275 and held as follows :
" It was contended that a different ruling was to be extracted from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gangu v.Chandrabnagabai. This is not so. In that case, the wife of a murderer was held entitled to succeed to the estate of the murdered man but that was not because the wife deduced title through her husband, but because of the principle of Hindu family law that a wife becomes a member of her husband's gotra, an actual relation of her husband's relations in her own right, as it is called in Hindu law a gotraja-sapinda. The decision therefore has no bearing on the present case. "
Therefore, the principle which has been enunciated by their Lordships is in no uncertain terms totally disinherit the son who has murdered his father. Their Lordships have observed as follows:
" A murderer must for the purpose of the inheritance, be treated as if he were dead when the inheritance opened and as not being a fresh stock of descent; the exclusion extends to the legal as well as beneficial estate, so that neither he can himself succeed nor can the succession be claimed through him."
This Privy Council decision made reference to the decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Bombay and their Lordships have approved the ratio contained in those decisions that a murderer should be totally disinherited because of the felony committed by him. This decision of the Privy Council was subsequently followed in the following cases :
i. K.Stanumurthiayya & Ors. v. K.Ramappa & Ors., AIR (29), 1942 Madras 277 ii. Nakchhed Singh & Ors. vs. Bijai Bahadur Singh & Anr., AIR 1953 All. 759 iii. Mata Badal Singh & Ors. vs. Bijay Bahadur Singh & Ors., AIR 1956 All. 707 iv. Minoti vs. Sushil Mohansingh Malik & Anr., AIR 1982 Bom. 68
17. This position of law was incorporated by way of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as quoted above, which clearly enunciates that a person who commits murder or abates the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder. In fact, the objects and reasons also makes a reference to the Privy Council judgment (supra). The objects and reasons for enacting Section 25 read as under :
" A murderer, even if not disqualified under Hindu Law from succeeding to the estate of the person whom he has murdered, is so disqualified upon principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The murdered is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent when the succession opens."
18. Therefore, once it is held that a person who has murdered his father or a person from whom he wants to inherit, stands totally disqualified. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it further clear that if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall be deemed as if such person had died before the intestate. That shows that a person who has murdered a person through whom he wants to inherit the property stands disqualified on that account. That means he will be deemed to have predeceased him. The effect of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased. The framers of the Act in the objects and reasons have made a reference to the decision of the Privy Council that the murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent. That means that a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any relationship whatsoever with deceased's estate. (paragraphs 16, 17 & 18 SCC pages 631-633) The aforesaid view, in our view, makes this issue really res integra. The legal position is enunciated on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and as a measure of public policy, and has its origination from the observations of the Privy Council as far back in the year 1924. The murderer, thus, has to be treated as non-existent and would not thus create a fresh line of descent. The murderer for the purpose of inheritance has to be treated as if, he was not there when the inheritance opened and not for the purposes of a fresh stock of descent. Thus, neither can he claim succession nor can the succession be claimed through him. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that Dr.Ramachandran being disqualified from inheriting the property of the child Baby Keerthana, respondents 7 & 8 would not be entitled to the estate as they claim through late Dr.Ramachandran, and this would thus put at rest the long controversy making the petitioners eligible to the estate of their daughter late Dr.Kalyani, as well as their grand- daughter late Baby Keerthana.
Question No.2:-
16. The second question becomes academic in character in view of our findings aforesaid in the given facts of the case. However, the moot legal point remains whether there should be preference to the heirs of the father over the heirs of the mother even in a case where the property devolved on the female child is the property of the mother and not the father. We do believe that the scheme of succession under Section 15 of the said Act takes its origin from the legal position prevalent prior to the said Act coming into force and has weighed in favour of male species. The concept of a female having wealth of her own either self-acquired or inherited from her parents was something possibly, which may not have been looked into. All the properties inherited by the female really belong to the husband. The assets in the present case are really belonging to Dr.Kalyani being her self-acquired property and there is no reason to give any preference to the parents of her husband over her parents in such a matter, the husband not being in the picture, and it needs to be looked into whether the paternal grant parents should inherit only if the property devolves from the father on the death of the female child, while the maternal grant parents would inherit the same in case it devolves from the mother, more specifically where one is referring to the self-acquired property of the mother. In fact, amendments brought into force by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39/05) have also been a step towards gender equality having far reaching ramifications.
17. In Omprakash vs. Radhachandran reported in 2009 (15) SCC 66, there is a discussion on Section 15 of the said Act in the context of the distinction sought to be pleaded between the self-acquired property and a property inherited by a woman. The law was silent with regard to such distinction for a self-acquired property of a woman. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous. It, thus, observed that the normal rule of succession intestate, as provided by the statute, would operate.
18. We do believe that the way out is for a re-consideration of the legislation in the form of the said Act and thus require that the matter should be placed before the Law Commission of India to be examined as to how gender equality principles can be implemented in turn requiring the necessary amendments to the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act.
Question No.3
19. In view of our finding on the first issue, the natural corollary is that the petitioners would be entitled to the legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar-second respondent by cancelling the legal heir certificate earlier issued to 7th and 8th respondents.
20. In view of the findings aforesaid, a writ is issued directing the second respondent-Tahsildar, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District to issue the legal heir certificate in favour of the petitioners by cancelling the certificate earlier issued to respondents 7 & 8 on 18.03.2002. The amounts which would now be in the fifth respondent-City Union Bank or any other amount of the estate of late Dr.Kalyani and late Baby Keerthana would thus devolve in terms of the said certificate.
21. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Index:Yes/No (S.K.K.,CJ) (T.S.S.,J) Internet:Yes/No 15::07::2015 pv/-
Office to Note: Copy of this order to be forwarded to Law Commission of India.
Order copy be issued on 20.07.2015.
B/o.
Ksr 15.07.2015 Copy to:
1. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi.
2. The Tahsildar, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
3. The Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District.
4. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madurai-Mandabam Road, Ramanathapuram,
5. The City Union Bank Limited, Mannargudi Branch, Mannargudi-614 001.
6. The Post Master, Orathanadu Post Office, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District.
7. The Law Commission of India, 14th Floor, Hindustan Times House Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 001 The Honble Chief Justice and T.S.Sivagnanam, J
-----------------------------------
pv/-
Pre-delivery Order
in
W.P.Nos.19942 to 19944/2002
Delivered on: 15::07::2015