Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sita Devi And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 28 January, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
RSA No. 805 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 805 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 28, 2013
Sita Devi and others
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and another
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
A.N. JINDAL, J.
The estate of Takhat Ram, an employee of the Municipal Committee, Nilokheri, District Karnal, is in dispute. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff Diwan Chand (since deceased), now represented by his legal representatives and the respondents were directed to release the payment alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
The facts are not much in dispute. Takhat Ram was married to Ram Piari, who had already a son born from the lions of her first husband. Takhat Ram, who was working as a peon, died on 22.1.1990. On his death, Ram Piari being his wife sought succession certificate, which was granted to her. She had become entitled to receive `10,766/- on account of provident fund, `8,680/- on account of leave pay, `7,695/- on account of gratuity and `5,000/- on account of life insurance. However, before Ram Piari could withdraw the said amount, she died on 19.8.1994, leaving RSA No. 805 of 2010 2 behind Diwan Chand, as her sole legal successor (now represented by the appellants). He also obtained succession certificate qua the aforesaid amount through court. However, the said amount was not released, therefore, he filed the present suit.
The respondents contested the suit. The main plea of the respondents was that Diwan Chand being not heir of the Takhat Ram was not entitled to have released the said amount. Ultimately suit was decreed.
The State of Haryana as well as the appellants filed appeals against the said order. The appellants also filed cross-objections.
The first Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the State of Haryana and dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants.
Arguments heard.
The prime question which arises for determination is, "whether the appellants were entitled to the release of the amount as left by Takhat Ram, in light of Section 15 (1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act')?"
It is not disputed that the plaintiff Diwan Chand had no relation with Takhat Ram and he was the son of Ram Piari from the lions of her first husband and Diwan Chand had only accompanied Ram Piari when she had married to Takhat Ram. It is also a fact that Diwan Chand was not born from the lions of Takhat Ram. Therefore, Diwan Chand could be said to be phichlag son but not son of the deceased. Section 15 of the Act reads as under:-
"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,-- RSA No. 805 of 2010 3
(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 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 sub-
section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."
The only question which now needs to be determined is whether the expression "son of the deceased" in clause (b) of Section 15 (1) of the Act includes step son also i.e. son of the wife from first husband. In order to decide it, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment of RSA No. 805 of 2010 4 Mallappa Fakirappa Sanna Nagashetti v. Shivappa, AIR 1962 Mysore 140, wherein it was observed as under:-
"According to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rama Ananda Patil V. Appa Bhima Redekar and others AIR 1969 Bombay 205, the emphasis in clause (a) of Section 15 (1) of the Act is one the aspect that the sons or the daughters are of her own body and not so much on the husband who was responsible for their birth and that therefore children of a female though by different husbands inherit her estate simultaneously."
This Court in the case of Gurnam Singh Vs. Smt. Ass Kaur and others, AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana 103, while repeating the view expressed in Rama Ananda Patil V. Appa Bhima Redekar and others AIR 1969 Bombay 205, held as under:-
"The exclusion of the words "of the deceased" from sub-clause
(a) of sub-section (1) was only a matter of convenience and to avoid repeated use of this phraseology in all the sub-clauses of the sub-section, that is, (a) to (e). Section 15 (1) has obviously a reference to the property of female Hindu dying intestate and it enumerates the list of persons upon whom the property is to devolve in the order as shown. There would have been no purpose to use the words, "of the deceased", every time a reference was made to the heirs of the Hindu female and if it had been done, it would have served no useful purpose. The omission of the words "of the deceased" in sub-section (1) is therefore, hardly of any significance. On the other hand, if RSA No. 805 of 2010 5 these words had not been used in sub-section (2), there could be a likelihood of confusion which has been avoided. There is another reason for the conclusion which I seem to draw in this behalf. If Section 15 (1) (a) is to be interpreted to mean that all sons and daughters of the husband of the deceased Hindu female are to be considered under its purview, it would cover not only sons and daughters but even step children and illegitimate children of the husband who can all claim to be "sons and daughters". I am sure this was not the intention of the Legislature."
Nevertheless, the Section 15 (1) (a) and (b) were interpreted in one way or the other. But in the present case, the status of the appellant is that of Pichhlag. He was not born from the lions of the deceased husband so as to inherit his property. Therefore, the words "son of the deceased"
cannot be interpreted to mean the sons of deceased wife from the husband or other person than the deceased whose property, he was to inherit, as such the pichhlag son cannot be given the right to inherit the property who was never adopted otherwise accepted by the deceased husband. Similar observations were made by this Court in case of Mohinder Singh Versus Joginder Singh 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 632, which reads as under:-
"The first question of law, arises from an admission allegedly made by Joginder Singh before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade that Mohinder Singh is the "pichlag son" of Saon Singh- deceased. The question posed is the import of this admission and whether it would confer any right upon Mohinder Singh, to assert his status as the son of Saon Singh and as a result his RSA No. 805 of 2010 6 right to inherit the estate of his step father. The words "pichlag son" mean a son from a previous marriage and when used in the context of a wife mean a son born to the wife from a previous marriage. The admission, if accepted, appears to suggest that Mohinder Singh is the son of Smt. Sardari wife of Saon Singh from a previous marriage. The admission, therefore, can at best be pressed into service to hold that Saon Singh was married to Smt .Sardari and Mohinder Singh is her son from a previous marriage. The admission cannot be pressed into service to hold that Mohinder Singh is the natural born son of Saon Singh from his marriage to Smt. Sardari. The list of heirs, entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased male Hindu are enumerated in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and do not include the son of a wife from a previous marriage. As a result, even if it is to be held that Joginder Singh has admitted that Mohinder Singh is the "pichlag son" of the deceased, it would not confer any right upon Mohinder Singh to succeed to the estate of Saon Singh as his natural born son. The first question of law is, therefore, answered by holding that the admission made by Joginder Singh that Mohinder Singh is the "pichlag son" of Saon Singh would not confer a right upon Mohinder Singh to succeed to the estate of Saon Singh or estop Joginder Singh or the respondents from asserting that Mohinder Singh is not the natural born son of Saon Singh and, therefore, not entitled to succeed to the estate of Saon Singh." RSA No. 805 of 2010 7
Thus, for the aforesaid discussion, it would be inappropriate to hold that pichhlag son cannot be said to be an heir of the deceased husband Takhat Ram whose property Dewan Chand deceased (now represented by the appellants) so as to inherit his property under Section 15 (1) (f) of the Act.
For the afore-stated reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
January 28, 2013 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE