Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

80. We also refer to the judgment in Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh13 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ordinarily laws of succession to property follow the natural inclinations of men and women. It was observed that according to Collins English Dictionary a ―son‖ means a male offspring and ―stepson‖ means a son of one's husband or wife by a former union. Under the H.S.Act a son of a female by her first marriage will not succeed to the estate of her ―second husband‖ on his dying intestate. In the case of a woman it is natural that a stepson, that is, the son of her husband by his another wife is a step away from the son who has come out of her own womb. But, under the Act a stepson of a female dying intestate is an heir and that is so because the family headed by a male is considered as a social unit. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a stepson does not fall within the scope of the expression ―sons‖ in clause (a) of Section 15 (1) of the Act, he is sure to fall under clause (b) thereof being an heir of the husband. The word ―sons‖ in clause (a) of Section 15 (1) of the Act includes sons born out of the womb of a female by the same (1987) 2 SCC 547 husband or by different husbands and adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inheritance. Children of any predeceased son or adopted son also fall within the meaning of the expression ―sons‖. It was further held that if Parliament had felt that the word ―sons‖ should include ―stepsons‖ also, it would have said so in express terms. It was concluded that the word ―sons‖ in clause (a) of Section 15 (1) of the H.S.Act does not include ―stepsons‖ and that stepsons fall in the category of the heirs of the husband under clause (b). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, when once a property becomes the absolute property of a female Hindu it shall devolve first on her children, as provided in Section 15 (1)(a) of the Act and then on other heirs subject only to the limited change introduced in Section 15 (2) of the Act. The stepsons and stepdaughters will come in as heirs only under clause (b) of Section 15(1) or under clause (b) of Section 15 (2) of the H.S. Act.

81. Paragraph 5 and the relevant part of paragraph 7 of Lachman Singh (supra) read as under:

"5. The only question which is to be determined here is whether the expression "sons" in clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Act includes stepsons also i.e. sons of the husband of the deceased by another wife. In order to decide it, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Section 3(j) of the Act defines "related" as related by legitimate kinship but the proviso thereto states that illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother and to one another, and their legitimate descendants shall be deemed to be related to them and to one another and that any word expressing relationship or denoting a relative shall be construed accordingly. Section 6 and Section 7 of the Act respectively deal with devolution of interest in coparcenary property and devolution of interest in the property of a tarwad, tavazhi, kutumba, kavaru and illom. Sections 8 to 13 of the Act deal with rules of succession to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. We are concerned in this case with the rules of succession to the property of a female Hindu dying intestate. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are material for our purpose. Ordinarily laws of succession to property follow the natural inclinations of men and women. The list of heirs in Section 15(1) of the Act is enumerated having regard to the current notions about propinquity or nearness of relationship. The words "son" and "stepson" are not defined in the Act. According to Collins English Dictionary a "son" means a male offspring and "stepson" means a son of one's husband or wife by a former union. Under the Act a son of a female by her first marriage will not succeed to the estate of her "second husband" on his dying intestate. In the case of a woman it is natural that a stepson, that is, the son of her husband by his another wife is a step away from the son who has come out of her own womb. But under the Act a stepson of a female dying intestate is an heir and that is so because the family headed by a male is considered as a social unit. If a stepson does not fall within the scope of the expression "sons" in clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Act, he is sure to fall under clause (b) thereof being an heir of the husband. The word "sons" in clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Act includes (i) sons born out of the womb of a female by the same husband or by different husbands including illegitimate sons too in view of Section 30 of the Act and (a) adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inheritance. Children of any predeceased son or adopted son also fall within the meaning of the expression "sons". If Parliament had felt that the word "sons" should include "stepsons" also it would have said so in express terms. We should remember that under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the coming into force of the Act, a stepson i.e. a son of the husband of a female by another wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the female on her dying intestate. In that case the son born out of her womb had precedence over a stepson. Parliament would have made express provision in the Act if it intended that there should be such a radical departure from the past. We are of the view that the word "sons" in clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the Act does not include "stepsons" and that stepsons fall in the category of the heirs of the husband referred to in clause (6) thereof."
"7.............. When once a property becomes the absolute property of a female Hindu it shall devolve first on her children (including children of the predeceased son and daughter) as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act and then on other heirs subject only to the limited change introduced in Section 15(2) of the Act. The stepsons and stepdaughters will come in as heirs only under clause (b) of Section 15(1) or under clause (b) of Section 15(2) of the Act. We do not, therefore, agree with the reasons given by the Allahabad High Court in support of its decision. We disagree with this decision."

85. We are therefore of the considered view that

i) the plaintiff being the son of Chennupati Kesava Rao and Manikyamba @ Mani, would be the ‗stepson' of Pushpavathi (1st wife of Chennupati Kesava Rao). Pushpavathi would not be included within the expression ‗parent', of the plaintiff, she not being the natural mother of the plaintiff, for the purposes of Section 16 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The plaintiff would not be the legal heir of Pushpavathi, on her death, so as to be called her ‗son' and therefore would not be entitled to succeed under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act. But,